Preamble

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (BY ORDER)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be further considered on Thursday 1 March.

COLCHESTER BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [LORDS]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Civil Aerospace Projects

Mr. John Wilkinson: How much launch aid for civil aerospace projects in the United Kingdom was invested by his Department over the past 10 years; and what royalties on sales in the civil aerospace sector were received by the Government in this period. [148999]

The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): The Government receive a return on their launch investments through levies on the sales of engines and aircraft.
In the financial years 1990–91 to 1999–2000, £999 million was awarded in launch investment; in the same period, £915 million was received. Further returns will be received from launch investments. The details of individual investments remain commercially confidential, but the Government expect to receive a substantial real rate of return on all launch investments made in the past 10 years.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does the Minister agree that those returns are broadly satisfactory? The programme of launch investment in the Airbus series of aircraft initiated by Baroness Thatcher, with some £220 million for the A320, is now to be followed by Government investment of some £250 million in the engine sector for the Trent 600 and 900 power plants? Does that not show that Governments of both persuasions recognise the strategic

importance of the British aircraft industry as a whole to the United Kingdom, and that the money is well invested and well spent?

Mr. Johnson: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's comments—it has been a great success. Money is still being received for the A320, which was introduced in 1988, which shows that the aid was a good investment for the British taxpayer.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my hon. Friend accept that launch aid has been crucial to retaining aerospace jobs resulting from the Airbus work in Burnley and north-east Lancashire? It is welcome, and we want it to continue. Aerospace is an important part of the local economy and the British economy as a whole.

Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend makes an important point. This is a great British success story. The aerospace industry has contributed an average of £2 billion to our balance of trade over the past 21 years. The venture that my hon. Friend mentions—the A380, previously known as the A3XX—will create 22,000 new jobs and safeguard 62,000 existing jobs.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Welcome as the news was, it was unfortunate that on the "Today" programme the Secretary of State did not pay tribute to the previous, Conservative Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) made clear, a Conservative Government looked carefully at the A320 programme and decided that, even though politicians were not generally the best at making commercial decisions, a decision could be made. The result was that all launch aid for the A320 was repaid with interest by December 1999. The Government are now receiving dividends on Britain's most successful post-war civil aircraft programme.

Mr. Johnson: On the issue of aerospace, the whole House can unite in supporting a great British industry. As for the previous Government's record, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Trade Tariffs

Mr. Harry Cohen: What representations his Department has made to the European Commission regarding the everything but arms proposal. [149000]

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): My Department has made many representations to the European Commission about its proposals, urging rapid implementation while at the same time taking account of the legitimate concerns of those such as the non-ACP less-developed countries that might be affected.

Mr. Cohen: Does the Minister agree that the everything but arms proposal, which provides tariff-free access for 919 products, is a welcome initiative? Will he put his weight behind it so that it is approved by the Council of Ministers as swiftly as possible? Will he point out to its critics that it will cost the EU less than £5 million a year—a small price to pay, considering the substantial prosperity that it engenders in developing


countries and the poorest countries? Does he recognise that, as well as helping the poorest countries to strengthen their economies, it sends out a strong message that it is better to trade in civilian goods than in arms?

Mr. Caborn: I completely agree. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made this country's position clear in his Mansion House speech. Indeed, we are taking the issue to the European Union, where we hope to be able to reach an agreement that will assist the least developed countries. We are talking about 0.5 per cent. of world share—of economies in which the gross domestic product is less than $1 per person a day. We have a responsibility to those countries, and we shall push very hard indeed on that matter in the EU.

Mr. John Bercow: There is fog of Government confusion on this matter. Why, in referring to the everything but arms proposal on 22 November last year, did the Prime Minister say, in terms, "We are concerned about the proposal", when, on the same day, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development said that the Government strongly support the proposal? Which of them was off-message?

Mr. Caborn: We strongly support it; the Prime Minister made that clear in his Mansion House speech. Indeed, we have led in the EU on the issue, to ensure that we push hard for the inclusion of the three items that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, have created difficulties—bananas, rice and sugar. The Prime Minister and the Government are as one on that.

Ms Julia Drown: This initiative is likely to result in only small gains for less developed countries. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the agreement does not come off as a whole, it will seriously call into question Europe's commitment to competition? Will he urge all his European colleagues to agree to the initiative in full, so that, at the next World Trade Organisation negotiations, our motives on trade liberalisation and competition are shown to be serious and in everybody's interest?

Mr. Caborn: That is a fair question. My hon. Friend is right: the EU must show leadership, especially as we approach another round of WTO negotiations. The vast majority of the 140 WTO countries are developing countries that look for a lead from developed countries. It is incumbent on the EU to take a lead.

Climate Change Levy

Mr. Tim Loughton: What recent discussions he has held with the steel industry about the effects of the climate change levy. [149002]

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): My ministerial colleagues and I have held regular discussions with the steel industry about the effects of the climate change levy.

Mr. Loughton: It sounds as though Ministers have not listened. How does the Secretary of State think that he is helping to combat global warming—let alone supporting

British manufacturing industry—by his insistence on imposing an additional £10 million energy tax burden on the UK steel industry, which is already under great pressure, even though it is one of the most efficient in the world and has halved its carbon dioxide emissions since 1970? The loss of capacity in the UK will be taken up by our European competitors, many of which exempt their steel industries from energy tax altogether; or, worse still, will go to countries that now account for more than 40 per cent. of world production and are not covered by Kyoto emissions targets and where control of harmful emissions is a low priority?

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that a balance needs to be struck between the desire for environmental protection and ensuring that, in achieving that objective, we do not affect the competitive position of British business. If the hon. Gentleman studies the evidence given by the chairman of Corns to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry yesterday, he will see that for Corns—the major steel producer in the United Kingdom—the climate change levy has had, or will have, very little impact.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that about £8 million of the £10 million to which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) referred is accounted for by Corns? The rest of the British steel industry accounts for the remaining £2 million. When the CCL was first mooted, the figure was to have been more than £120 million. As a consequence of neliptiation with my right hon. Friend's officials, it was reduced to about £8 million. The last thing on which Corns can blame the redundancies is the impact of the CCL.

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point; £8 million of the amount relates to Corns. The company has pointed out that an issue of the greatest concern is that, if the exchange rate between the pound and the deutschmark changes by just one pfennig, it is the equivalent of an £8 million difference. That is why we need currency stability in the UK—one of the benefits that we would receive from joining a successful single European currency.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does the Secretary of State believe that he is making a contribution to British industry by levying a charge on it? A company in my constituency will see the price of its gas rise next year from £300,000 to £600,000—its third largest cost after materials and salaries. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Government need to tell that company to try to reduce its energy costs?

Mr. Byers: Manufacturing industries, in particular, welcome the economic stability that the Government have created. Inflation is now 1.8 per cent. and interest rates were reduced last week. We now have the lowest long-term interest rate for some 35 years. That is the economic stability that manufacturing industry craves. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the gas and electricity figures, he will see that over the past few years the price


of gas has gone up in real terms by 4 per cent. for industrial users, but that that has been more than compensated by reductions in electricity prices.

Mr. Eric Illsley: Will my right hon. Friend consider an aspect of the steel industry—the foundry industry? Although not on are same scale as the major steel producers, foundries suffer from the climate change levy, and throughout the country they are working to very tight margins. Has he had any discussions with representatives of that industry? W al he consider its predicament?

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point about specific issues affecting the foundry sector, and we have been carefully considering the support that we can give it. The exemption arrangements that we are putting in place give due regard to the position of the foundry sector of the steel industry.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: In the Secretary of State's statement on the 6,000 steel industry job losses at Corus earlier this month, he explicitly denied that the climate change levy was a factor. Is he aware that, on the very same day, the chairman of Corns said:
Direct and indirect taxes on business such as … rising energy costs and the climate change levy have all eroded our competitiveness."?
That is a direct quote from the management. Is the right hon. Gentleman so out of touch with manufacturing industry that he does not know that damage is already being caused by that £1 billion extra tax, or does he know that damage is being caused but is too weak to stand up to the Treasury and simply denies it? Which is it?

Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman clearly did not follow the evidence that the chairman, Sir Brian Moffat, gave to the Select Committee yesterday, when he was quizzed very carefully on exactly those issues. I trust the evidence that the chairman of Corns gave to the Select Committee. He made it very clear that the climate change levy was not an issue for Corns. That is on the record; it is exactly what he said yesterday before the Select Committee. I much prefer to rely on evidence given to a Select Committee than on any quote in a national newspaper.

Renewable Energy

Mr. David Kidney: Which of his Department's funds support the creation of new businesses in the renewable energy sector. [149003]

The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): New businesses in the renewables energy sector, as in other sectors, may be eligible to apply for enterprise grants, regional selective assistance, smart awards, help from the small firms loan guarantee scheme and so on. However, businesses in renewable energy are also directly supported by the non- fossil fuel obligation, the proposed renewables obligation capital grants and an increasing research and development budget.

Mr. Kidney: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does she share my belief, and that of my ever-enthusiastic constituent, Mr. Bob Talbott of Talbott Heating Ltd.,

that the growing demand for renewable energy sources in this country and around the world genuinely offers the prospect of a new generation—excuse the pun—of manufacturing jobs, making the things that generate the energy? Will the Minister and the Government be alert to opportunities to promote United Kingdom manufacturing jobs in those new industries?

Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and with his constituent. The renewable energy sector already employs some 4,000 people in about 800 companies across the United Kingdom. We have set a target that 10 per cent. of overall generation will come from renewable energy in the next 10 years, which will require a threefold expansion in generation from renewable energy. We want to ensure that that benefits British high-tech manufacturing industry and creates more jobs in Britain.

Mr. Brian Cotter: The Minister's comments on renewable energy firms are very encouraging, but will she recognise the fact that 4,000 new firms start every year and that such a big sector needs support? The incubator scheme proposed in the White Paper, which has just been announced, is designed to assist 2,500 firms, and another scheme is designed to help 1,000 firms over three years, but many other firms will clearly need support and new firms are coming through. Does the hon. Lady believe that it is also important to offer continuity of support to firms, as nearly 50 per cent. of them fail within two years?

Ms Hewitt: The Small Business Service that we have created and the new business links network throughout the country are designed to provide exactly that high-class support to businesses at every stage of their life cycle, including pre-start-up and growth. We are also making available in the renewable energy sector £89 million in capital grants, introducing a new renewables obligation and providing additional help for R and D, all of which will help to create more businesses specifically in that sector.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: Does my hon. Friend share my view about the enormous potential that lies in the development of offshore wind energy? As well as providing a supply of renewable energy free of some of the obstacles of the planning system, it offers firms in the offshore oil and gas sector, which is declining at the moment, opportunities to diversify. Will she join me in welcoming the proposal by SLP, a firm in my constituency, to build a wind turbine and a renewable energy centre at Britain's most easterly point, Lowestoft?

Ms Hewitt: I certainly welcome that and I congratulate SLP on its initiative. The £89 million of capital grants to which I referred are available specifically for offshore wind energy projects, which have enormous potential. We are also supporting demonstration wave energy projects, which can help to stimulate the growth of the offshore energy market.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the Minister seek to ensure that relevant Departments and planning authorities are fully aware of Government policy on, and support for, renewable energy? Does she agree that


consultation between promoters of renewable energy projects, planners and environmentalists is a better way of resolving disputed planning applications than expensive public inquiries and appeals procedures?

Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Planning concerns are expressed about many proposed renewable energy projects, and his suggestion that these matters are best resolved through sensible dialogue within local communities is exactly right.

Mr. David Chaytor: In view of the record profits announced this week and in recent weeks by some of the world's leading non-renewable energy companies, does my hon. Friend think that if the Chancellor could be persuaded of the merits of a windfall tax on oil companies it would provide a revenue stream for investment in the development of renewables that would enable the United Kingdom to be a global leader in renewable energy technologies, exactly as it is in the climate change strategy?

Ms Hewitt: Oil companies are making substantially increased investment in the North sea fields. They are also investing in new sources of renewable energy. Any other issues to which my hon. Friend referred are of course a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

Mr. Nick Gibb: It is interesting to note that the hon. Lady has taken over responsibility for renewable energy from the new Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe. However, she shares with the hon. Gentleman an important task in trying to put together a coherent energy policy, which both their predecessors spectacularly failed to deliver over the past four years, particularly on the issue of rising CO2 emissions as Magnox stations are decommissioned.
At the moment, only 2.8 per cent. of electricity generation is from renewable sources, so the general view in the industry is that the Government's target of 5 per cent. from renewables by 2003 is completely unrealistic. How confident is the Minister that the target will be met? If it is not met, what will be the consequences for the CO2 emission figures and energy policy generally, which are both based on the assumption that it will be met?

Ms Hewitt: We are working actively with the sector to achieve that target, which is more than the previous Administration did. The non-fossil fuel obligation—the existing obligation—and the proposed renewables obligation have led to an increased demand from energy users for energy that is generated from renewable sources. The fact that the climate change levy has been carefully designed to give an exemption for energy that is generated from new renewable sources is further stimulating that demand. I am confident that we will work successfully with the industry to achieve our targets.

Manufacturing Industry (Gas Prices)

Mr. John Grogan: What assessment he has made of the impact on manufacturing industry of the rise in the price of gas. [149004]

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): The Government are very much aware of the impact that the rise has had on manufacturing. We are addressing that by pressing for greater liberalisation in Europe and working for improvements in the United Kingdom market. We shall also refer any evidence of anti-competitive behaviour to the appropriate competition authorities. I particularly welcome the Commission's announcement on 1 February that it has agreed to my request for a Commission competition inquiry into the operation of the interconnector.

Mr. Grogan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Given that the price of industrial gas has doubled in the past year, does he agree that there is a strong case for encouraging the Office of Fair Trading to take a look at the gas industry, especially as the interconnector, which is often blamed for the rise, accounts for less than 6 per cent. of total consumption by British industry?

Mr. Byers: The Government are doing three things. First, we are tying to make a reality of the single market in Europe with regard to energy. Secondly, we are trying to ensure that the UK market functions properly. One way to achieve that is by securing greater price transparency, and I hope that the industry will agree to that. Thirdly, to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend, we have to ensure that competition works effectively. If there are examples of anti-competitive behaviour in the sector, we will move quickly and refer them to the relevant competition authorities.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Secretary of State says that if the European Union is to mean anything, the single market must work properly. The fact that energy is not fully liberalised within the EU, but is generally liberalised within the UK, is putting us at a considerable competitive disadvantage. What is he doing to press the commissioner to complete his inquiry? Is it not wrong that a fully French-owned company should be able to take over London Electricity when British companies cannot take over French energy companies?

Mr. Byers: Eléctricité de France's takeover of London Electricity did not raise any competition concerns, but we do need to make a reality of the single market in energy. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is an important prize. We are pushing that agenda forward, have secured a commitment in Lisbon for a timetable on it and will raise that important item at the Stockholm Council in a couple of months.
There is no doubt chat we stand to gain enormously if we make a reality of the single market. At the moment, it is not acting in the interests of the UK, which is why the interconnector and the way in which it operates are particularly significant and why I am pleased that the Commission has agreed to open the inquiry to ensure that it is operating competitively.

Mr. Michael Clapham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a major cause of the increase in gas prices is the fact that gas suppliers are pushing more gas down the interconnector to chase higher prices on the continent, which has pulled UK prices into line and squeezed our market? If he agrees


with that analysis, does he also agree that it is time to consider putting more resources into the research and development of clean coal technology)?

Mr. Byers: I was waiting for that final question. My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I shall address. As for the reasons for the price increase, there is often a tie between the price of oil and the price of gas. Contracts, especially in continental Europe, are related to the two prices. As a result, when contracts were renegotiated last autumn, the very high oil prices at that time led to a significant spike in gas prices. That should not necessarily affect the United Kingdom, but the way in which the interconnector has operated gives cause for concern. As my hon. Friend said, UK gas now chases higher prices in continental Europe, even when demand in the UK is very strong.
If hon. Members have time, I invite them to consider how the interconnector operated on 15 January. When the market was tight in the UK and a good price was being paid, the interconnector suddenly switched from import mode to exporting. That is one of the issues that the Commission will investigate, because it appears that the operation of the interconnector is not truly competitive.
On my hon. Friend's final point, we are interested in considering clean coal technology. He will be aware that we are discussing with the sector how we can develop pilot projects in this area.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Secretary of State confirm that whole sale gas prices have doubled over the past year and that they will go up again from April as a result of the new energy tax? Will he also confirm that retail prices are starting to be affected? They are due to go up by nearly 5 per cent. shortly, with more rises in the pipeline. Why is the Department's only response to blame the increases on the interconnector and the lack of liberalisation in the European energy market? The Government say that they have much influence in Europe, so why have they done nothing about the problem for the past four years?
Why do we have a Secretary of State who does not know what the problem is? He will not do anything about it and he is simply reduced to the role of spectator while the damage is done. As a spectator, he makes a stopped clock—as mentioned by the Minister for Competitiveness—look like a positive model of energy, activity and accuracy.

Mr. Byers: That sounded very much like a Tory demand for renationalisation of the gas and electricity industries, and that may well be supported by some of my hon. Friends. The right hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening, but we must make sure that the market works effectively. He has considered the issues, so he will know that we inherited from the Conservative Administration a market that was not working effectively.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the figures for gas and electricity prices, so let us consider what we have been able to do. Industrial consumers pay 4 per cent. more for gas than they did in 1997, but they pay 12 per cent. less for electricity. According to the latest figures, domestic consumers pay 14 per cent. less for electricity and 12 per cent. less for gas. [interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. When the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) asks a question, I expect him to allow an answer.

Mr. Byers: The difficulty, Mr. Speaker, is that the right hon. Gentleman does not like the facts getting in the way of his own prejudice. However, the facts for domestic customers are clear. The latest figures show that they pay 14 per cent. less for electricity and 12 per cent. less for gas. That is what we have done. The right hon. Gentleman needs to reflect on those figures. He asked what the Government had done, and I have told him what we have achieved—we have taken the prices down.

Industrial Diseases

Mr. John Cummings: What progress has been made to date in settling claims for vibration white finger and chronic bronchitis and emphysema; and if he will make a statement. [149006]

The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mr. Peter Hain): We have settled more than 20,000 claims for vibration white finger and made a further 23,000 interim payments, together totalling nearly £220 million in compensation. For lung disease, progress has been much slower, but payments are now starting to flow, with about £113 million having been paid out. In recent weeks, we have been paying out about £1 million per day across Britain for both.

Mr. Cummings: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that reply and wish him well in his endeavours to break through the logjam that is causing so much misery and distress to tens of thousands of seriously ill ex-miners.
Will my hon. Friend examine, as a matter of urgency, the possibility of accepting paper assessments of desperately ill ex-miners who find themselves unable to undergo the full medical assessment process? Is it not ironic that the Department should accept paper assessments in relation to deceased claimants but not in relation to living claimants who are desperately and woefully ill?

Mr. Hain: I shall examine my hon. Friend's suggestion afresh, although it has been considered before. Respiratory consultants prefer to see claimants in person because they can often provide a better deal as a result. That was the view of Mr. Justice Turner in his court judgment. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's long involvement with the mining industry and his strong commitment to justice for miners. That is a principle to which I am committed as the new Minister with responsibility for energy. I will work with my hon. Friend and anybody else to achieve justice for miners.
There have been delays, and we are putting the system right. Each day, £1 million is being paid out. The Conservative Government denied justice to miners year after year, and we are now delivering it.

Mr. Simon Thomas: I wish the Minister well in the vital task that is before him. As part of it, will he reconsider the invidious clawback—a bureaucratic nightmare, which does not bring much financial relief to the Government and causes great distress to miners'


families. Will the hon. Gentleman talk again with his colleagues in government about relieving the clawback for miners' families?

Mr. Hain: Discussions are taking place to ensure that the system is as fair as possible. We are committed. Last week £1 million was paid out in compensation to miners in Wales. The system has been too slow and there have been too many problems. There have been faults on all sides, including the Government's. Healthcall, IRISC—the claims handlers—and solicitors have all been responsible for delays. We are driving through improvements and I call on the hon. Gentleman and his party, instead of sneering from the sidelines—I welcome his earlier comments, which go against that—to work with us to ensure that the system delivers what it is intended to deliver.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be doing everything that is possible because he, like me and many other hon. Members, has constituents who are directly affected by the issue. What other steps does he think could be taken to speed up the process? Will he speak to the solicitors, who in some cases have been holding papers for more than five months? Ex-miners have contacted me about the slowness of progress with their claims.

Mr. Hain: In the Bridgend area alone, £5.5 million has been paid out in miners' compensation. That is an important contribution to the welfare of miners in my hon. Friend's constituency and in the surrounding area. This afternoon, I am meeting the solicitors' group representing claimants and I will discuss these matters with them. We have given a clear priority, and urged everybody to go with it, which is that the oldest and illest miners must come to the top of the queue, even if younger and fitter miners find their appointments rescheduled as a result.
I have identified several categories, including asthma cases and widows' cases, which have not so far been subject to quick payments. I have identified those categories and others so that we may get the money flowing as quickly as possible. That is being achieved. Much more needs to be done, but we will get there.

Mr. David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that a satisfactory system for settling claims depends, at least in part, on the accessibility of test centres? In a written answer to me yesterday, my hon. Friend said that sick, ill and injured miners in Leicestershire should attend the centres at Cannock, Coventry or Nottingham. Without their own transport or public transport, these places are about as accessible to them as the dark side of the moon. Will my hon. Friend again review the location of test centres, to make them more convenient for miners in my constituency and in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd)?

Mr. Hain: I know of my hon. Friend's concern. I shall certainly look again at his proposition. Of course there are domiciliary services for the most infirm. In the context of driving forward prioritisation for the oldest, illest miners, we are looking at ways in which we can help with their

travel needs to get them into centres as quickly as possible. They deserve attention, assessment and compensation in the shortest possible time.

Aerospace Industry

Mr. Gordon Prentice: What steps he is taking to safeguard employment in the aerospace industry. [149007]

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): We have taken a number of steps, for example launch investment in BAE Systems to develop the wings for the A380 aircraft. On Tuesday, I announced launch investment in Rolls-Royce for further development of the Trent aero-engine. As a result of the action taken by the Government, employment in the aerospace industry has increased since 1997, with the latest figures showing more than 15,000 more people being employed in the sector.

Mr. Prentice: I extend my hearty congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his wisdom, perspicacity and foresight—you do nit often hear that, Mr. Speaker, so savour it—for putting £250 million in launch aid into Rolls-Royce, which is an important company in my constituency and that of my next-door neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike).
This week, Rolls-Royce said that the £250 million grant will sustain 7,000 jobs in the company and the supply chain. I am worried that some of those jobs in the supply chain may be overseas. What conditions were attached to the grant to Rolls-Royce to ensure that as many jobs as possible stay in the United Kingdom, and do not go to other places such as Canada and eastern Europe?

Mr. Byers: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. The 7,000 jobs which have been safeguarded are in Rolls-Royce and the supply chain here in the United Kingdom, hopefully bringing benefit to my hon. Friend's constituents and people in neighbouring constituencies in Lancashire.
I also understand my hon. Friend's concern about the restructuring on which Rolls-Royce has embarked, especially its intentions on its research and development work. We need to do all that we can to encourage Rolls-Royce to regard the United Kingdom as a good place to continue its research and development. Even at this late stage, I hope that Rolls-Royce will think again, consider that item for a few more weeks, and perhaps see what the Chancellor may announce in the Budget. We know from the pm-Budget report that my right hon. Friend is looking at the whole area of research and development support for large businesses as well as small and medium-sized enterprises.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating Boeing on the inward investment that it has announced in Yorkshire and the Humber—the homeland of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—as recently as last week? Will the Secretary of State be particularly robust in standing up against any aggressive or protectionist standards from


the United States authorities, especially in any contest between Boeing and Airbus Industrie over the future of aerospace in this country?

Mr. Byers: The hon. Lady touches on an important point—how we can make sure that the trade disputes that have blown up between the European Union and the United States over the last few years do not occur under the new US Administration. We have already made very good contacts with the new US trade representative, and I know that he is acutely conscious of the need to ensure that we have mechanisms in place thac will ensure that we can move in quickly and stop those disputes developing into the sort of problems to which the hon. Lady referred.
Boeing's decision to invest, with the university sector, in state-of-the-art facilities in Yorkshire, is a good demonstration of how universities and businesses can work together. The fact that world-class companies such as Boeing are coming to Yorkshire is a demonstration that, under this Government, Britain is a good place to do business and research. As a result, we are creating British jobs.

Mr. David Borrow: May I tell my right hon. Friend that many of my constituents working for BAE Systems have welcomed the launch aid and the various military orders that the Government have announced in the past few years? Despite that, they have seen round after round of redundancies in Lancashire and the threat of further redundancies in the months ahead. As for BAE Systems, the company seems to have no clear strategy for the future. In discussions with the company in the weeks ahead, will my right hon. Friend make clear to it the concerns of Lancashire MPs and their constituents about the future of BAE Systems and its commitment to the UK aerospace industry?

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend has been a powerful advocate for the interests of BAE Systems workers in Lancashire. I understand the concerns that he has expressed and I shall certainly raise them with the company's management. Global competition means that BAE Systems is going through a period of restructuring. It is not the job of the Government to try to stand in the way of that, as the company must make commercial decisions in its interests to ensure employment opportunities. Our task must be to help individuals through this period of change. One of the things that we are trying to do with BAE Systems is to ensure that it can secure more contracts in export markets. I hope that there will be some good news in the near future on the securing of major contracts by the company.

Electricity Trading Arrangements

Mr. Christopher Chope: What has been the cost to consumers of the delay in implementing the new electricity trading arrangements. [149008]

The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mr. Peter Hain): We have no evidence that consumers' contract or tariff rates for the period April 2000 to March 2001 have been revised upward since the delay to NETA was announced.

Mr. Chope: This is a serious issue. Yesterday, Sir Brian Moffat told the Trade and Industry Committee that electricity prices in this country were 40 per cent. higher than on the continent. The Minister did not answer my question directly, but he knows jolly well what has happened. If he speaks to Dynergy, which has the authority and confidence of Ofgem, the regulator—I spoke to the company, as I anticipated that the hon. Gentleman would not give a straight answer to my question—he will find that the delay has cost consumers no less than £1,200 million. That is an average cost of £45 per electricity consumer. Is that not appalling, and why do the Government not admit the failure of their policies in that regard?

Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman speaks of policy failure, but since we came to office, electricity prices have fallen by 14 per cent. in real terms for individual consumers and by 12 per cent. in real terms for industrial consumers. That is a policy of success, not of failure. In respect of NETA—Hon. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Hon. Members may indeed say "Ah!" As gas contracts are negotiated a year in advance for most consumers, let us compare the third quarter of last year with the third quarter of 1999. In that time, prices fell by 4.5 per cent. for industrial consumers and by 10 per cent. for individual consumers. That shows that the new trading arrangements that we are introducing have produced in anticipation circumstances in which there are lower prices. We intend that to be driven forward and we want ordinary consumers, whether in industry or in the home, to benefit as a result.

Mr. Denis MacShane: My hon. Friend must know that for the steel industry, which depends so heavily on electricity, prices in Europe are significantly lower. The difference is not at the level mentioned yesterday by Sir Brian Moffat, whose figures are slightly out of date. In 10 days' time, I shall meet my hon. Friend with a delegation from the industry to discuss the matter. Will he consider it seriously between now and then? Will he put his officials in an electric chair and, if he cannot deliver, in 10 days' time, electricity prices that are equal to those of our competitors in Europe, let me pull the button on them?

Mr. Hain: I am not sure about the electric chair option, but I shall consider seriously and listen carefully to my hon. Friend's representations. As a result of NETA we expect prices to be at least 10 per cent. lower than they would otherwise have been. It is precisely because we were concerned about the relatively high electricity prices that we inherited from the Conservative Government under the pool system that we are introducing NETA, which will ensure a better deal for the steel industry, as well as industrial consumers and household consumers in general.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I welcome the Minister to his new job and I hope that we will have some straighter answers from him than we did from the Secretary of State on gas prices. Will he confirm that the new electricity trading arrangements, with all their supposed benefits, have been delayed from last autumn and may well be delayed again, and that that breaks a


specific promise given to the House on 31 January 2000? On Second Reading of the Utilities Bill, the Secretary of State said:
In 12 months, we will be able to debate the matter knowing exactly what has happened as a result of the changes."—[Official Report, 31 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 784.]
Since that has not happened, will the Minister now accept that the Secretary of State misled the House on that occasion? Is the hon. Gentleman happy to have joined a Department with such little influence on real events and with an energy policy which is an obvious shambles?

Mr. Hain: I am happy to have joined a Department which, unlike our Conservative predecessors, has a clear energy policy, and which is led by a Secretary of State who is presiding over a clear programme to bring down gas and electricity prices and to provide a decent energy supply throughout Britain.
The delay to the introduction of NETA was on the recommendation of Ofgem and its head, Callum McCarthy, with whom I am in weekly contact. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the pre-production phase, to trial the system before it is due to come in at the end of March, started a week ago last Monday, and I have been receiving daily reports on how it is going. Depending on how that eventually turns out, the button will be pressed on the full introduction of NETA as planned on 27 March. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would want us to bring in new trading arrangements which were in any way flawed, as looked to be the case when the delay was announced last year.

Export Control Bill

Mr. Desmond Browne: When the draft Export Control Bill will be published. [149009]

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): Work is continuing to prepare the draft Export Control Bill for publication and the Government will publish the Bill as soon as it is ready. It is not possible at this stage to give a precise date, but we will be in a position to publish the Bill in the spring.

Mr. Browne: I recognise that the Government have done much to improve the transparency and accountability of arms export deals, and that there are potential practical difficulties, such as delay and commercial confidentiality, in their prior parliamentary scrutiny, but does my hon. Friend accept in principle that prior parliamentary scrutiny of arms export deals would improve accountability and transparency?

Dr. Howells: We continue to believe that the best way forward is to strengthen retrospective scrutiny of the Government's export licensing decisions. However, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said that he will look constructively at any further proposals from the quadripartite Committee on this issue.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: But is it not the case that the Foreign Secretary, when he was in opposition, continually attacked the Conservative Government over the Scott report? The Government have

had four years to introduce this legislation. Is it not the case that, as with the electricity trading arrangements and the consumer White Paper, such things are trumpeted but nothing ever happens? There is more trumpeting than in Duke Ellington's orchestra. Is it not the case that the Department, like the rest of this shambles of a Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) would say, is all spin and no delivery?

Dr. Howells: Unlike the Conservative party, the Government are entirely in harmony.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is real urgency about achieving parliamentary scrutiny of arms exports, and that the decisions of the quadripartite Committee are important in that regard? Is not the Government's decision to export arms to Morocco, which can only be used for internal repression against the Polisario front, just one more example of why there should be public parliamentary scrutiny of what happens to arms exported from Britain to countries that are under no threat of external aggression?

Dr. Howells: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I know the process that resulted in the refurbishment of some guns in Morocco and I understand that that had permission from the United Nations in New York.

Post Office (New Technology)

Mr. David Amess: What recent representations he has received on the introduction of new technology by the Post Office. [149010]

The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a small number of representations in recent weeks on the introduction of the Horizon computerised system at post offices including correspondence from the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson)

Mr. Amess: Will the Minister confirm that the Horizon system, which was introduced at a cost of more than £1 billion, is already out of date and will not be able to meet the challenges that post offices will face in the future? Will he reassure worried postmasters and postmistresses in my constituency, a third of whom will have to close in July this year as a result of the introduction of automated credit transfer? When will this rotten Government stop attacking the most vulnerable people in our society—our senior citizens—who love to have a chat in the post office, and are not all that keen on communicating via e-mail or the internet?

Mr. Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is always at his most persuasive when he whispers to me so seductively. I should be interested in the views of those on the Conservative Front Bench, because Horizon is not outdated technology. We are wiring up 40,000 serving positions at 18,500 post offices at a rate of 300 a week. It has been extremely successful, and the work will be completed by the end of March. Number of post offices


computerised under the previous Government—nil. Number of post office computerised under this Government so far—17,560.

Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: Mrs. Jennifer Hayden, the sub-postmistress in Houghton in my constituency, will have to resign her post because, given the overheads placed on her by the Post Office, her income is less than the minimum wage. Would the Minister please look into that matter to ensure that the Post Office is not exploiting sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, who do valuable work for our communities?

Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend raised this matter with me last evening, and I have written the letter as promised during our conversation. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Labour Members do converse. I am interested in hearing about examples from hon. Members on both sides of the House. We want to find out why sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses resign, so that we can implement practical measures to do something about it. Now that the spotlight is on the network, we should consider issues such as that raised by my hon. Friend. I shall give it urgent attention, and I shall speak to her about it in due course.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Mrs. Rimmer, the sub-mistress at Ashton post office in my constituency, and her family have suffered armed robbery twice in the past nine months. What new technology do the Government and the Post Office propose to provide to ensure that sub-post offices can be securely protected against the evident rise in violent crime'? Sub-postmistresses in particular are vulnerable. We must do something about that, and we look to the Government to take the lead.

Mr. Johnson: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. In fact, attacks on sub-post offices are down. The Post Office has invested a great dual of money and time and has worked with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters to address the problem of security. However, there is more that we can do, and I would certainly be interested in the case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. This is a crucial area. Sub-postmasters and their staff deserve to be safe front such attacks, and we will do everything we can to ensure that they are.

Gillian Merron: What progress has been made with setting up the technology in readiness for the universal bank? That will bring banking facilities to millions of people who have previously been denied such access. Will the Minister pay tribute to the likes of Mr. Paul Titcombe, the sub-postmaster at Horton Street post office in Lincoln, who put o it his own leaflet to reassure his customers that they will continue to receive benefits and payments in cash despite the changes?

Customers have been frightened by the campaign fuelled by the Conservative party, which has brought the changes that the Government are making into disrepute.

Mr. Johnson: The Post Office is currently out to tender for the technology that needs to be added to the Horizon system so that post offices can provide the full range of network banking. I can reaffirm what was in the leaflet put out by the sub-postmaster in my hon. Friend's constituency. Before and after the move to automated credit transfer, any pensioner or benefit recipient who wants to continue to get their money in cash in full across a post office counter, weekly if it is paid weekly at the moment, will be able to do so.

Mr. Richard Page: As the Minister sits there, presiding over the meltdown of our sub-post offices, forced closures are taking place at a rate of nearly two a day. There have been 434 in the first three quarters of the current financial year.
The Minister has made much of the fact that universal banking services will apparently plug the gap caused by the introduction of ACT. Does he not find it incredible that the new technology for sub-post offices, due to be installed by the end of March, is not yet equipped with a facility to provide any of those universal banking services? Will he bring some hope to our beleaguered and battered sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses by guaranteeing that ACT will not be introduced until the new facility is in, tested and tried? Conservative Members will give that guarantee: we will not introduce ACT until the new facility is in place.

Mr. Johnson: I seem to have been a long time in my service position, but I shall try to deal with the hon. Gentleman's request.
Those figures relating to closures are a cause for great concern. Let me make it clear that we are not, as it were, banking simply on universal banking services, Government general practitioner services and all the other initiatives that are in the pipeline in accordance with the report of the performance and innovation unit. Today we shall announce practical measures to attract new sub-postmasters into the network.
The problem is that over the past two years people have become convinced that the network is dying. We must restore confidence in it. We shall announce today that on 1 April we shall abolish the introductory payment, equivalent to 25 per cent. of salary, that new sub-postmasters must currently make. We have also created new management posts that will concentrate on rural areas, and we are providing £2 million to pay the capital costs of taking over the running of sub-post offices if local communities wish to do that. Those are important practical measures. [Interruption.]
A Conservative Member asked the question, but the Conservatives clearly do not want to hear my response. Their party would privatise the Post Office; we are making it plain that we will not go down that particular railtrack.

Business of the House

Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House please give the business for the coming week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for the week after the forthcoming constituency week is as follows:
MONDAY 26 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Criminal Defence Service (Advice and Assistance) Bill [Lords].
Motion to approve the Administration Committee report on the trial summer reopening of the line of route.
TUESDAY 27 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Hunting Bill.
WEDNESDAY 28 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day [6th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 1 MARCH—Consideration in Committee followed by remaining stages of the House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Bill.
FRIDAY 2 MARCH—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week after will be:
MONDAY 5 MARCH—Debate on Welsh affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
TUESDAY 6 MARCH—Second Reading of the International Development Bill.
WEDNESDAY 7 MARCH—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
THURSDAY 8 MARCH—Continuation of the Budget debate.
FRIDAY 9 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The House will wish to be reminded that on Wednesday 28 February, there will be a debate relating to the protection of the European Communities' financial interests and to the Court of Auditors' annual report for 1999 in European Standing Committee B.
On Wednesday 28 February there will also be a debate relating to informing and consulting employees in the European Community in European Standing Committee C.
The House will also wish to be reminded that on Wednesday 7 March there will be a debate relating to motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements in the European Community in European Standing Committee C.
Additionally on Wednesday 7 March, there will be a debate relating to health requirements for animal by-products in European Standing Committee A.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
The business in Westminster Hall for the remainder of March will be as follows:
THURSDAY 8 MARCH—Debate on public funding of civil legal services.
THURSDAY 15 MARCH—Debate on the Social Security Committee report on housing benefit.
THURSDAY 22 MARCH—Debate on the Scottish Affairs Committee report on poverty in Scotland.
THURSDAY 29 MARCH—Debate on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee Report on electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland.
[Wednesday 28 February 2001:
European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union document: Unnumbered EM submitted by DTI dated 21 November 2000, informing and consulting employees. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee report: HC 23-xxx(1999-2000).]
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union document: (a) 13572/00, European Community Finance; (b) Unnumbered EM submitted by HM Treasury dated 20 December 2000, European Community Finance. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report HC 28-v (2001).
Wednesday 7 March 2001:
European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union document: 13889/00, Competition in Motor Vehicle Distribution and Servicing. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 28-iii(2000–01).]

Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to the Leader of the House, although I suspect that her attractive red outfit may be matched by some red herrings in what she has announced. I am sure that it will be comforting to hon. Members of all parties to know that the House will be sitting throughout the month of March.
The House rises today and does not return until Monday 26 February. Under normal circumstances, we would have expected ministerial statements on two pressing matters. The first is the millennium dome, and today's report that there will be a handback clause in the sale agreement—

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: A handbag?

Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman did not hear me, so I shall repeat that it is reported that there will be a handback clause in the sale agreement. There is great concern about that, and I am sure that the House would want to hear about the details of the agreement for the disposal of the dome site from the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The dome has been a terrible drain on lottery resources, and it is very worrying to think that it will continue to be a drain on taxpayer resources. Will the Leader of the House explain how the Government intend to inform hon. Members about the detail of the agreement, given that the House will be in recess?
The second matter on which we would have expected a statement is the complete failure, announced today, of the Home Office computer system to process asylum applications. For the past four years, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has been challenging Government policy on the matter, often in Opposition time. The Government continued to claim that they were increasing the rate at which decisions were processed, and made no reference to any technical problems with the computer. The Home Office now says that the problems are due to the computer. The Government seem to be falling back on those old chestnuts when a problem arises—it is the


fault either of the previous Tory Government, or of the computer. Those excuses are beginning to have about as much credibility as the promise that the cheque is in the post.
Will the Leader of the House say when we can expect a White Paper outlining the consideration given by the Government to the constitutional consequences of scrapping the pound? The matter is especially pertinent, as we heard only this week that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been rebuked by the European Union for spending too much public money. That is our money, and it has been spent in our country. Will the right hon. Lady ensure that for the first time the Chancellor shares with the House how he and the Government came to the decision that there are no constitutional consequences to the policy? Otherwise, we fear that the Chancellor's EU masters will continue to wish to control UK public expenditure, regardless of whether we join the euro.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady asked about statements on the dome. To the best of my recollection, the fact that discussions on the handling of the dome are continuing is in the public domain. She referred to stories about a handback clause, but I am afraid that I have not seen them. I am sorry to learn that they are causing great concern, but I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions is taking such matters into account.
The hon. Lady then moved on to the issue of the Home Office computer system. I know that it is very awkward for Opposition Members that almost all the present computer systems were commissioned by the previous Government, who tied us in to irrevocable contracts. Those contracts had very severe penalties, and we could not abrogate them. I recognise that that is a real source of difficulty, especially on matters such as asylum, out of which the Conservative party is trying to make some mileage.
I heard the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) this morning trying to pretend that no one had ever mentioned problems with the system in the past. I do not know where the right hon. Lady has been, but I remember copious references to the problems. If I heard her correctly, she also alleged this morning that no one had ever said that the system had been commissioned by the Conservative party. I have heard that repeatedly over the past few years—in despairing tones, from ministerial colleague. As I am feeling charitable today, I will say that the right hon. Lady was uncharacteristically inaccurate.
On the question of a White Paper on the constitutional consequences of the euro, as you will be sadly aware, Mr. Speaker, we have been over this territory many times. The Conservative party is completely familiar with the Government's position on the constitutional issues—we do not believe that there is a bar—the moves towards the euro and the five economic tests. There is nothing to add to what has been said so often before.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The Leader of the House will be aware that the International Criminal Court Bill is progressing through the House of Lords. However, I am disappointed that she has not given a date by which it will be debated in the Commons. Could she now do that so that the Bill can get here rapidly? Clearly,

the Bill will be an important step forward in dealing with the prosecution of international war criminals and dictators in the future.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's great interest in the Bill, of which he has long been a supporter and advocate. I say to him, gently, that the Bill has not had its Report stage in the House of Lords.

Mr. Corbyn: I said that it was progressing.

Mrs. Beckett: I know, but it has not yet completed its progress. No matter how great the concern, we do not set timetables for debates in this House when the other House is still dealing with a matter. We do not presume to know the judgment of another House until a Bill arrives here.

Mr. Paul Tyler: May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to a matter that may be of particular interest to you, Mr. Speaker—namely, the report this morning from the Procedure Committee on the election of Speaker? May I ask for an undertaking from the right hon. Lady that the House will have an opportunity to debate this report as soon as possible? Given that the Committee itself seems to have reached a consensus on recommendations to the House—that is broadly representative of the House generally—we may require very little time in the Chamber to deal with the matter. Perhaps the Leader of the House might find such an opportunity even in the week after our constituency week. It is important that the matter be determined before any possible Dissolution. Will she give us that undertaking today?
Secondly, I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to the report this morning that the official advisers to the Government on the safety aspects of the privatisation of National Air Traffic Services are very concerned about the qualifications of the preferred bidder. Clearly, this problem should be brought before the House as quickly as possible so all Members can see what is involved.
Thirdly, what are the plans for the remaining stages of the Hunting Bill on Tuesday 27 February? The Leader of the House will be aware that substantial amendments are being tabled by the Government to cover huge areas of concern on all sides. Putting aside the personal views that all hon. Members have, I am sure she would agree that we all have a responsibility to make sure that the Bill is workable and practical and meets the anxieties of police forces throughout the country. Can I have an undertaking that, if it proves necessary, amendments will be available before Monday, the day before the debate? Will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking that if additional time is required, we can at least go until midnight that night, if not longer? Perhaps she might negotiate with Conservative Front Benchers who, I understand, share our anxieties about getting the Bill right. Perhaps the Government might like to borrow half a day—or even the whole of the following Opposition day—from the Conservatives so that the House can give the Bill careful consideration.

Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of the publication of the report on the election of a Speaker. The House owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who chairs the Procedure Committee, and his colleagues for their assiduity and speed in dealing


with the matter. I have not had an opportunity to study the report fully, but I understand that it is very good. We all appreciate that.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) knows perfectly well that no Leader of the House would make a commitment ahead of time to dates that have not already been announced. I repeat my comments to the hon. Member for Macclesfield and his colleagues that I understand the House's wish to discuss the matter and make decisions on it. I shall bear that in mind; doubtless it will be discussed through the usual channels.
I have seen the press reports to which the hon. Member for North Cornwall referred. The Government have always stressed that safety will be an important factor in any decisions. If the press reports are accurate, they will be carefully considered by my right hon. and hon. Friends who deal with those issues.
Discussions are under way about the best method of scheduling and debating the remaining stages of the Hunting Bill to ensure that hon. Members have an opportunity to reach a proper decision according to the wish of the majority. I cannot say more now, but those discussions are being undertaken in a spirit that all hon. Members would welcome. I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's generous offer of a day of Conservative time.

Mr. Keith Darvill: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the review of local government finance? Consultation on the Green Paper, which was published last year, ended at the beginning of December. We held a debate only two weeks ago on this year's review, and several hon. Members raised general anxieties about the subject. In the light of those factors, it would be useful to discuss those issues generally before we make a decision on the future of local government finance.

Mrs. Beckett: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's point. Although the local government grant has increased by 14 per cent. in real terms in the past four years, compared with a cut of 7 per cent. in real terms in previous years, anxiety remains about the underlying structure for settling local government grant. Hon. Members of all parties share that anxiety. I cannot undertake to find time for an early further debate on the matter, but it is hoped that further proposals, perhaps even a White Paper, will be produced later this year.

Sir Norman Fowler: There was much discussion yesterday about long supplementaries, and especially long, rambling replies at Prime Minister's Question Time. Is not that almost implicit in a 30-minute session? Would not the House be better served by a return to two 15-minute sessions a week?

Mrs. Beckett: I know that Opposition Members like to make much of that point because they believe that the Government are somehow in a weak position. However, the Conservative party, not for the first time, is in danger of shooting itself in the foot. As someone who has had more experience than most hon. Members of dealing with Prime Minister's Question Time from the Opposition Benches, I believe that the 30-minute session is much

harder for a Prime Minister. It gives a competent Opposition an opportunity to conduct a sustained line of questioning, which pits greater pressure on a Minister and a Prime Minister.
Despite the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about inadequate answers, the Prime Minister's second change, to which Conservative Members never refer for some reason, cut out the time-wasting repetition of the answer, "I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago." The Prime Minister has answered more questions than his predecessor; he answers them well, and the Conservative patty makes an error, not for the first time, in requesting a change.

Mr. David Lammy: The Leader of the House will of course know that, since 1997, my constituency has received a substantial amount of money through regeneration budgets. Will she consider scheduling a debate on the relationship between retailers and multinational fast food chains and urban regeneration in our town centres? I ask that in the light of KFC's decision to pull out—indeed, to chicken out—of Tottenham High road, and our anxiety that other such outlets on our high streets will follow suit.

Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend and his constituents recognise the role that the Government have played in putting substantial further resources into the area. However, I also understand the underlying concern that he expresses and that I think is felt in many parts of the country about both the change in our high streets and the way in which that change renders community feeling and the local environment somewhat vulnerable. I sympathise with the concern that my hon. Friend expresses. I fear I cannot undertake to find time for a debate in the Chamber on those issues, but he might seek an opportunity in Westminster Hall.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I thank the right hon. Laity for the very courteous and encouraging response that she gave to the question asked by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on the Procedure Committee's second report entitled "Election of a Speaker"? May I maximise my charm, diplomacy and persuasion in asking her whether she realises that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members—including I think the overwhelming majority of Labour Members let alone Opposition Members—would like to have a debate on that report and to have in place a new system for the election of a Speaker by the end of this Parliament? It is an important issue, and the Procedure Committee undertook the inquiry at the request of the House. May I make that fervent plea for an early debate?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful point. He is also entirely right to say that it was very clearly the wish and the will of the whole House not only that such an inquiry be conducted, but that it be conducted expeditiously. As I said, we are all grateful to him and to his Committee for having done so. He will not, I know, expect me to go much further than I already have in answering the question from the hon. Member for North Cornwall. However, I do indeed bear in mind the


wish of the House in wanting the report to be carried out, and I have little doubt that it will be the wish of the House for the report to be debated.

Shona McIsaac: May I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention a series of complaints that I have had from residents of Barrow upon Humber about a recent outbreak of lawlessness in the village? They are particularly concerned about cars continuing to park at bus stops and a truck that ended up in a bumper-to-bumper confrontation with a police car—when a bus was not able to proceed up the high street because it was blocked by the truck and a Mercedes was parked in the bus stop. May we therefore have a debate on observing the highway code? The fact that the truck was a "Save the Pound" Tory truck and the Mercedes at the bus stop was owned by a Conservative Member is in no way colouring my views on the issue.

Mrs. Beckett: I am very sorry to hear of the sad experience of my hon. Friend's constituents—

Mr. John Bercow: Devastated.

Mrs. Beckett: Yes, indeed, I am devastated, particularly as it would appear that the incident was due either to bad parking by a Tory Member of Parliament or to the lack of progress of a piece of Tory party propaganda on wheels. Clearly, yet not for the first time, a Tory bandwagon has hit some problems. However, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time in the near future for debate specifically on that matter.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Is there any possibility of a Home Office Minister making a statement to the House on the policy for the treatment of people seeking asylum in this country, giver that genuine asylum seekers would have no objection at all to being held in detention until it was shown that their applications were genuine? It would then be possible to see whether there was any alternative to the Conservative policy of having comprehensive detention, which wail ensure that those who deserve asylum get it and that me vast majority who do not are not able to get into society illegally, as is happening under this Government.

Mrs. Beckett: I am pleased to hear what the hon. Gentleman says about sympathy—which does not always shine through on the Opposition Benches—for those who are genuine asylum seekers. Of course we understand the anxiety to ensure that those issues w e properly resolved.
The hon. Gentleman refers to the Conservative policy of universal reception centres. It is unfortunate that the Conservative Government did not implement the policy during the years when they had the opportunity. I have, no doubt in common with other hon. Members, experience of constituents who were here seeking a decision on their case for years under the previous Government without its ever being resolved. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, not only has the Conservative party opposed all the measures that we have introduced to tackle asylum problems but it is CN en opposing the only proposal that has been made so far for a new detention centre, at Aldington. Therefore, although ugh I understand the

point that the hon. Gentleman makes, I fear that, not for the first time, the remarks made by members of his party are not consistent with its policy.

Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we return to the question of the loss of jobs in the steel industry and consider the disgraceful events of yesterday? At dawn, a confident announcement was made of 4,000 jobs for redundant steelworkers. By midday, it turned out that the jobs would probably never be created and, if they were, that few of them would be located in the areas where the steelworkers lived. Is it not grossly unfair to steelworkers to raise their hopes in that way? Was it not reasonable of the steel union to describe yesterday's stunt as "a cruel fantasy"? Would not a debate be an opportunity to appeal to Corms once again to negotiate in a reasonable way with the steelworkers and the Government, instead of indulging with its collaborators in self-serving publicity stunts?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend will know that there is considerable concern about the impact of the Corus changes on the local communities and that the Government are determined to do what we can to assist and will work to provide retraining or other opportunities. I understand my hon. Friend's concern that some of the proposals, when followed through, will not have as much impact as was hoped. He will know that the Government have throughout pressed Corms to reconsider some of its proposals and have consistently offered to do what we can to help. That position remains unchanged.

Mr. Stephen Day: The right hon. Lady will be aware that yesterday was one of those rare occasions when the Prime Minister gave a full and enthusiastic answer to one of his hon. Friends about regional government, referring specifically to the north-east. Can she assure my constituents that such a statement does not indicate that the Government have serious intentions of introducing an assembly in the so-called north-west of England? The very thought of another layer of government and even more politicians like us fills my constituents with horror. Their loyalties lie with their town, their county and their country, and there is no room for an alien concept such as the north-west of England, which is merely a geographical expression and carries no sense of identity for the people of my constituency.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, with which I suspect that not everyone in the north-west agrees. We have been consistent in making it plain that, were any proposals to be made for the development of regional government structures, they would be implemented only if that was the wish of the people in the locality. The hon. Gentleman can therefore reassure his constituents that there is no danger of anything being imposed on them against their will.

Mr. David Crausby: Will my right hon. Friend be able to find time for a debate on the obscene profits announced by the oil companies, perhaps with a view to levying a windfall tax in order to compensate motorists?

Mrs. Beckett: I know that great concern has been expressed about the profits of the oil companies, and that that has been drawn to the attention of my right hon.


Friend the Chancellor and other right hon. and hon. Friends on repeated occasions. My hon. Friend will know that we look carefully at all the issues and all the complications that arise, but he will also know that, while my right hon. Friend has undertaken to take those matters into account, he has made no commitment on them.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I revert to an important point made by the shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). Why do Her Majesty's Government refuse to make a statement in this place on the dome? Can the Leader of the House not change her mind, even at this late stage? Is she aware that the taxpayer is paying £1 million a month for the care and maintenance of the dome, and that a cosy deal seems to have been struck with the Labour benefactor, Mr. Bourne, whereby his bid can be perpetuated as the sole bid under consideration—notwithstanding the fact that other bidders, such as Mr. Gerbeau, are keen to have their tenders considered? Is that not a scandal? Does the right hon. Lady not realise that obfuscation and flannel by the ignoble peer, Lord Falconer—[Interruption]—in the other place shed no light on the matter and do not reassure the public that an honest deal is being done for the taxpayer and for the country?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not refer to an honourable Member of the House of Lords as "ignoble". Perhaps he would be good enough to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Wilkinson: I think Mr. Gerbeau talked about the total ineffectiveness of the Government—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am instructing the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the remark.

Mr. Wilkinson: I withdraw it and say instead "the ineffective peer in the other place".

Mrs. Beckett: With regard to the request for a statement on the dome, I told the shadow Leader of the House that of course the matter is under consideration at present, and will remain so. There is no cause to make a statement at present; no doubt the point will be borne in mind, should the need for such a statement arise.
As for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about a cosy deal, it is not a cosy deal—the matter is in the public domain. Mr. Bourne has indeed been a benefactor to the Labour party—he has been a benefactor to the Conservative party as well.

Mr. Barry Gardiner: I know that my right hon. Friend always reads the latest Employment Service statistics with great care. I am sure that she will have been as delighted as I was that they show that youth unemployment in my constituency has fallen by 50 per cent. since 1997. Could she make time for a debate on youth employment and the success of the Government's programmes, and could particular attention be given to the differential rates below the minimum wage, which are paid to apprentices, as I think that there may be abuse by some companies?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes two powerful points. I have noticed increasingly that observations are

made by my hon. Friends about the dramatic fall in youth unemployment and in long-term youth unemployment. I have no doubt that the same phenomenon is occurring in the constituencies of Opposition Members, but for some reason they do not want to mention it very often. The fall in youth unemployment should be a source of great satisfaction to Members on both sides of the House. Nothing could be mere damaging for the future of our country than for the young, in particular, to languish in unemployment and se e their prospects and hopes blighted so early in their lives
I take my hon. Friend's point about the concerns as to the potential for exploitation in the different rates of the minimum wage. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. However, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the matter in the near future, although my hon. Friend may find that there are opportunities to raise it in Westminster Hall.

Mr. Christopher Chope: When are we going to have the debate on small businesses? Last week, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), the Leader of the House said that many requests w ere received for annual debates and that it was not possible to comply with all of them. Is not this matter different, however? Does the Leader of the House remember that the Labour party made an explicit policy promise in its manifesto at the previous general election that there would be an annual debate on small businesses? Are not he Labour Government reneging on that promise?

Mrs. Beckett: We are not reneging on anything. I am simply unable to announce a date at the present time.

Mr. Richard Burden: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on consumer protection? There are two principal reasons. The first is so that the Government can amplify the provisions of the White Paper "Modern Markets: Confident Consumers". Secondly, such a debate would give the Conservative party the opportunity to explain its consumer protection policies. For example, some Conservative Members supported the Outworking Bill and put their names to it; others opposed on principle providing legal protection from con artists wanting money up front; and those on the Conservative Front Bench, while saying that they agreed with the principles and participating in the debate, absented themselves from the vote, thereby effectively killing the Bill for this Session. Vulnerable people who could have been protected will now have to wait months, perhaps years, as a result of their actions.

Mrs. Beckett: I have great sympathy with the point that my hon. Friend makes. I know how disappointed he will be that he was unable to make further progress with his Outworking Bill. Sadly, as he will know, it is by no means the first time that Conservative Members have claimed to support legislation, or to be perfectly happy to facilitate its consideration, but the opposite has happened, and they claim it is ill an unfortunate coincidence. He is therefore right to draw attention to that problem, and I share his regret that it is not possible to proceed with his Bill and do more to protect outworkers. I am confident that my hon. Friend, and those like him who genuinely


wish to help those who are being exploited, will look for other opportunities to raise the matter, but I fear that I cannot promise a debate on the issue in the near future.

Sir George Young: The Government have made some very controversial changes to our procedures, with a view to injecting some certainty into the legislative programme. Against that background, will the right hon. Lady tell the House how optimistic she is that, by the end of March, the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill, the Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill, the Health and Social Care Bill, the Homes Bill and the Hunting Bill will have completed their passage through Parliament?

Mrs. Beckett: I should have to check precisely where all those Bills are at present, but the right hon. Gentleman may be inviting me to anticipate some of the decisions of the other place. He is certainly right to say that we have embarked on some experimental changes in procedures, which are controversial, especially among Conservative Members, but have long been recommended by Members on both sides of the House. We believe that as the procedures settle down, they will give the House greater certainty and enable us to deal with legislation more effectively. I am confident that the Government's legislative programme is well on track.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: Might my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the administrative costs of social security—in particular, the new Conservative plan to scrap the automatic £200 winter allowance for pensioners, which would be expensive, complex and confusing—

Hon. Members: Order, order.: Hon. Members: Order, order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot heat the hon. Gentleman, with hon. Members shouting "order?. Let me hear what he is saying. He might know that the Leader of the House is not responsible for Conservative party policy, but he can continue with the question; I s ant to hear what he has to say.

Mr. Leslie: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to ask my right hon. Friend whether the Government would find time to debate the administrative costs of social security, so that we could debate issues such as the effect of scrapping the automatic £200 winter allowance for pensioners—a plan that would b not only confusing and complex, but extremely costly. Chat blows a hole in the Conservative party's hollow aspirations to cut the costs of red tape, which are a complete and utter joke.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to refer to the concern that any Government should feel about the possibility of a substantial increase in administrative costs for no gain. I understand his wish to debate the possible impact on costs of the policy that the Conservative party currently advocates. Such are the pressures of time,

however, that I fear I cannot find time to debate issues such as social security every time that the Conservative party changes its policy.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Does the Leader of the House have any intention of restoring to our timetable the debate on the Standards and Privileges Committee which, rather sinisterly, she pulled out of the timetable last week? Unfortunately, there is a danger of our whole system of self-regulation being irrevocably discredited. The Committee has overridden the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on three occasions, and it so happens that each time a member of the Government was involved: the Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), formerly the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), formerly the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Chairman himself has been convicted by the commissioner of systematic non-disclosure.
The inquiry into the affairs of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), has dragged on for more than a year and will drag on for even longer because the Committee is hearing witnesses, something which the same Chairman refused to do in the inquiry into the Hamilton affair at the beginning of this Parliament. In fact, he cut off the Committee proceedings when I was about to question Mr. Hamilton, and he prevented us from calling Fayed or any of the other witnesses.
We need to know what is going on. Will the Leader of the House restore that debate to the timetable so that we have an opportunity to express our concerns? I hope that there will also be an opportunity for those concerns to be satisfactorily addressed.

Mrs. Beckett: Although I am somewhat disappointed by what the hon. Gentleman has said and the tone in which he said it, I am in some ways quite pleased that he said it on the Floor of the House, because it enables me to tell him how disgraceful I thought his contribution was on the BBC last week, when he made exactly the same points. He was, as he pointed out, a member of the previous Standards and Privileges Committee, and in consequence I should have thought that he knew better than to try to undermine the work of the present Committee in the way that he has done previously and again today.
I must say two other things to the hon. Gentleman. First, despite his remarks, the Committee's decisions—which it is free to make on behalf of the House, as is right and proper—were unanimous. The Committee makes the decisions that it believes are in the interests of the House. Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who chairs the Committee, is held in high esteem and respect in the House, which is more than can be said for the hon. Gentleman at present or will be said if he carries on like this.

NHS Hospital Building

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the NHS hospital building programme.
The national health service is in the most prolonged period of expansion in its history. The NHS plan that we published last July set out a major reform programme to accompany the investment that we are making. Extra cash is now beginning to bring on line the extra capacity that the NHS needs to make care better and faster for patients.
This morning, my Department published new figures showing continued growth in qualified staff within the health service. The figures show that in September 2000, compared with September 1999, there were 2,500 more doctors, 3,500 more scientists, therapists and technicians and more than 6,300 more nurses working in the NHS. That means that since 1997, the number of doctors has risen by 6,700, the number of scientists and therapists by 9,600 and the number of nurses by 17,100. Of course, problems do remain with shortages of doctors, nurses and other trained staff, but progress in the health service is now being made.
The NHS plan set ambitious targets for addressing the shortage of trained staff that has bedevilled the NHS for many decades. From April. NHS budgets for training doctors, nurses and other qualified staff will rise by over 11 per cent. Together with the other action that we are taking to recruit and retain more staff, that increase in training budgets will sustain growth in staff numbers not just until 2004, as the NHS plan promised, but until 2010. The record increases in funding which the Government are now making mean that the NHS today is the fastest growing health service of any major country in Europe.
There is a huge amount of catching up to do. Nowhere is that clearer than in the state of NHS buildings. This afternoon, I am publishing a report on the progress that we need to make as a nation in improving the NHS estate and, in particular, in modernising its hospitals. One million patients a week use NHS hospitals. One third of those hospitals were built before the NHS was created, and one tenth date back to Victorian times. We cannot deliver 21st century care in 19th century buildings.
For too long, investment in NHS infrastructure has been a low priority when it should have been a high priority. Capital investment in the NHS was lower at the end of the previous Parliament than it was at the beginning. The consequences are plain for all to see: shoddy buildings, unreliable equipment and out-of-date hospitals. In too many places, the environment in which staff work and patients receive care is simply unacceptable.
We have made a start in putting that right. The biggest new hospital building programme in the history of the NHS is already under way. Since 1997, 38 major capital schemes, worth almost £4 billion, have been given the go-ahead. New hospitals are already open in Carlisle, Dartford, south Buckinghamshire, Rochdale and Sheffield. A further five new hospitals are due to open later this year.
The NHS plan set out proposals for a total of 100 new hospital developments in England during the course of this decade. Many parts of the country need those new hospitals—some local communities have been waiting

decades for them. In 1997, we established a team of experts—the capital prioritisation advisory group—to advise the Government on which new hospitals should move ahead first. The criteria that the group uses includes an assessment of w here health need is greatest and facilities are poorest.
The group has met during the past few months to advise on the next round of new hospital developments. I am grateful to it for the difficult work that it has had to do. The NHS plan indicated that nine new hospital developments would be given the go-ahead in 2001, with a further nine to follow in 2002. The group considered 29 bids for those 18 new hospital developments. The advice that I have received is that there is a strong case for investment in all 29 proposed schemes. I have accepted that advice. Instead of approving 18 schemes, I am giving the go-ahead to all 29.
I can announce that, during this year, work will begin to procure 12 new hospital developments in Birmingham and Bradford, for Bristol's mental health services, in Central Middlesex, East Kent, Leicester, Lewisham, Peterborough, Salford, Tunbridge Wells, Wakefield and Whipps Cross. Next year, work will begin to procure a further 13 new hospital developments in Brighton, for Bristol's acute services, in Central Nottinghamshire, Chase Farm, Chelmsford, Colchester, Hull, North Middlesex, North Staffordshire, Plymouth, St Helens, Walsall and Wolverhampton. The following year, work will begin to procure a further four new hospital developments in 0xford, Southampton, South Devon and Tameside.
The total projected value of the new hospital developments is £3.1 billion. Each will need to be subject to the normal approvals process and, of course, each will need to confirm viability, affordability and value for money before it is flu ally signed off. The first of the new hospitals will be open by 2006. That is an unprecedented expansion in new hospital developments in the NHS. For millions of patients and thousands of staff, it will provide modern state-of-the-art hospital treatment and care.
Many of the new hospital developments will be delivered through the private finance initiative, if that represents best value for the taxpayer and the NHS. I can confirm that, at the end of the PFI contract, the option will he open for each hospital to become the property of the local health service.
I am also making a further major reform of the PFI process. For too long, hospital developments have been considered in isolation from other changes to local health services. A hospital can only work successfully—for example, avoiding bed blocking and long waiting times—if it works in partner Chip with local primary, community, intermediate and social services. In each of the PFI deals, consideration will need to be given to building alongside a new hospital new primary and intermediate care facilities in the local community to help to ensure more seamless care for local patients. In some cases, that has already happened, spreading the benefits of private finance to other pares of the NHS, where investment is sorely needed.
However, we need to go further still if we are to deliver the shorter waiting times that patients need and good health demands. NHS hospitals deal with almost 4 million emergency admissions a year. They have grown by more than one quarter in the past 10 years. In the NHS,


emergencies always come first. That is as it should be, but every year increased emergency admissions displace planned elective admissions. That sometimes means that planned operations are cancelled at the last minute, causing distress for patients and frustration for staff.
The NHS plan announced a new generation of diagnostic and treatment centres to overcome that problem by separating emergency from elective work. Today, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is visiting one such pioneering centre at the Central Middlesex hospital. As its experience shows, insulating routine hospital operations from often more complex emergency treatment can make a real impact on the time that patients wait for treatment.
Within the hospital developments that I have announced, 16 such new centres will be developed. In addition, similar projects have been agreed at City Birmingham hospital, Dudley, Hinchingbrooke, Kidderminster, Liverpool, Milton Keynes, Ormskirk, Southport, Sutton Coldfield and West Middlesex. In total, we shall invest around £250 million in this new generation of fast-track surgery centres.
The centres will each have distinctive features according to the needs of the local health service, but they will all bring faster care to patients. Patients will be able to book their admissions at their convenience rather than simply being given an appointment time. Some centres will operate at weekends. There will be more day surgery and more same-day test and diagnosis. They will all help to get waiting times down for patients. Crucially, they will mean greater reliability for patients by helping to end the misery of last-minute cancelled operations.
Investment in new hospitals must produce reform in the way in which hospitals deliver care. The problems that patients and staff experience today in the NHS are a product of previous failures not only to invest, but to reform. The resources that we are making available will help to lever in long-overdue changes.
The new hospital developments that I have announced will provide new standards of care for patients and a better working environment for staff. There will be workplace nurseries for staff. There will be no mixed-sex wards, but more single rooms. Patients will have access to a bedside telephone and television, and will have the latest scanning and diagnostic equipment. There will be same-day test and diagnosis facilities to make services faster and more convenient for patients.
There will also be more beds in the new hospitals. For four decades, the number of hospital beds has been falling—157,000 were cut between 1980 and 1997 alone. More than 60,000 of those were general and acute beds. In the year to December 2000, the number of general and acute beds in hospitals started to rise again. I am determined that that trend should now continue.
Overall, these new hospital developments will provide almost 3,000 extra beds on the number currently provided. Indeed, in every single one of the new developments more, not fewer, beds are planned. Moreover, I am issuing to the NHS today new guidance, following the national beds inquiry, which requires each region to expand, not to contract, the number of beds available for patients. The prevailing culture in the NHS has been one of bed closures and cutbacks. That is no longer sustainable. What the NHS needs is more, not fewer, beds.
This major programme of investment will bring more staff, more beds and more new hospitals. It will also bring reforms to the way in which health care is delivered. Patients will be treated in modern, high quality facilities with the latest equipment and the best trained staff. Reliability will be improved and waiting times will be cut. Of course it will take time to deliver, but after decades of neglect, the NHS is now set for a decade of sustained growth alongside far-reaching reform.
The choices that we as a Government have made for Britain—economic stability and investment in our key public services—are paying off for the NHS, the staff who work in it and, most important of all, the patients who use it.

Dr. Liam Fox: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement.
Well, well, well; surprise, surprise. Just before announcing the date of the general election, the Government produce a wish list for voters, bribing them with the taxes that they have not yet paid—good old Labour party pork-barrel politics. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for pointing out that 6,700 extra doctors have joined the NHS since 1997. Given, as he frequently points out, that it takes five years to train a doctor, every one of them, by definition, began his training under the previous, Conservative Government as part of our programme of expansion. We also provided extra nurses, thanks to the increase of more than a third in the number of nurse training places between 1994 and 1997. The Secretary of State conveniently forgot to mention those facts.
The right hon. Gentleman's announcement is a sham. He is going for great headlines. Although he says that he is giving the go-ahead for 29 projects, let us consider the buts, and there are many of them. He is giving the go-ahead for 29 projects, but each will need to be subject to the normal approval process. There are 29, but each will have to confirm viability and affordability and, before it is finally signed off, value for money.
The first of the hospitals will be opened by 2006. The Government have failed to deliver in this Parliament and have already guaranteed that, should they be re-elected, they will fail to deliver in the next Parliament.
I shall ask some questions to ascertain whether the statement is anything more than headline and whether there is anything substantive within it. How, in detail, will the projects be funded through PFI? What will be the length of the average contract through PFI? What is the expected rate of return? How many of the current PFI projects in the national health service are behind schedule?
The Secretary of State talks about seamless local care. I ask him to think again about the way in which he describes seamless local care for patients. He talks about building primary and intermediate facilities alongside new hospitals. Seamless care is a function not of geography, but of co-ordination of services. It is of little comfort to patients who might be at the periphery of a health area if everything is concentrated in the centre. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will explain what he really means.
I am delighted, at least in principle, by the concept of fast-track units, as the Secretary of State calls them in his announcement. We described them in our "Believing in Britain" document as stand-alone units. The concept has


been our policy for some time. I am always ready to welcome the conversion of the Secretary of State to our thinking. In bringing forward the policy, he will have recognised the problems that always exist when attempting to introduce fast-track policies of this nature.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us his estimates for the extra numbers of staff that will be required for the units, and especially his estimates of specialist staff. How will consultant care be divided in the units? Will the same consultants be responsible for all junior staff, even round the clock? These are the practical differences between a headline and a policy.
The Government have missed two factors. First, the Secretary of State says that emergency admissions and displaced planned elective admissions sometimes mean that planned operations are cancelled at the last minute, causing distress for patients and frustration for staff. The greatest problem, in terms of cancellation of operations and frustration for patients and staff, is the Government's waiting list initiative, which throughout the country regularly causes cancellation of operations or worse, forcing surgeons to do things that they do not want to do simply to squeeze more minor complaints through the system to get the waiting list down.
Surgeons at Guy's hospital in London say that they have been asked by management to do fewer hip replacements so that they might deal with more minor complaints in the same amount of time. We think that that is an unethical approach to care and that the Government should abandon that failed policy.
Secondly, the Secretary of State talks about the number of beds, including intermediate care beds. We are seeing a huge reduction in the number of care beds in the community—as many as 50,000 in the current year. That will lead to more bed blocking and less ability to provide intermediate care. It will have a knock-on effect on waiting lists because of cancelled elective surgery.
I ask the Secretary of State to answer eight questions. The number of—[Interruption.] I know that Labour Members think that answering questions in the House is bizarre and unusual, but it is why Ministers come to the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the extra nurses that he talked about will be full-time equivalents? When does he expect to reach the average European levels of expenditure on health to which he alluded? What will the length of the PFI contract be for new projects? What will the rate of return be on these contracts? How many current PFI programmes in the NHS are behind schedule? Can he confirm that the option to return a building to the NHS already exists under PFI and is nothing new? What extra staff will be required for stand-alone units and how will they be recruited? How many care home beds does the Secretary of State estimate will be lost this year, making bed blocking more acute?
We await answers to those detailed questions; that is the difference between a Government who live by headlines and a Government who have thought through their policy. We shall judge the Government not on the promises that they are making today, but on their delivery. They promised to cut waiting lists, yet lists have gone up; cut NHS bureaucracy, yet it has increased; abolish trolley waits, yet they are still there; and get rid of mixed-sex

wards, yet they still exist. We judge the Government by what they have done, not by what they promise, and so will the British people

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Are you going to vote against it?

Dr. Fox: You silly man

Mr. Milburn: If I may interrupt the dialogue, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) started by praising his party's record. If he wants to quote his party's record, perhaps he will stand by the record that meant that the number of nurse training places were cut under the previous Government, as were the number of GP trainees. They fell by a quarter under the previous Government, whereas they are rising by a quarter under this Government.
I shall deal with the specific issues raised by the hon. Gentleman. The number of extra nurses, doctors and so on that I announced—which, indeed, were announced earlier today—are head court figures, as they were in the NHS plan. The length of the contract for PH deals will vary according to local circumstances. We expect that many contracts will be between 15 and 30 years. As for the cost of the contracts and extra personnel to the revenue budgets of the NHS, we expect that it will amount to an extra £300 million of revenue commitments for the NHS, which it is well capable of affording, given the increases that we have made.
On the number of contracts that are behind schedule, I can confirm that not a single contract is behind schedule. Indeed, many PFI contracts are coming in on time and ahead of schedule. The hon. Gentleman said that the option to return to NHS ownership at the end of a contract is nothing new. Well it was not new under the previous Government because that was not how PFI operated then. We made the change to PFI contracts; in fact, I made it when I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury. That is a new development for PFI.
The hon. Gentleman started with a rather outlandish allegation that the programme was a form of electioneering. It is a strange form of electioneering for a Labour Secretary of Slate to agree to hospitals in the constituency of the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), the shadow Defence Secretary; in Colchester, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), the shadow Transport Minister; and in the constituency of the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), the shadow International Development Secretary. It is an odd Labour Secretary of State who embarks on electioneering and agrees to new hospitals in the constituency of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and that of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the shadow Home Secretary. It is a very odd Labour Health Secretary who agrees to two hospitals in the constituency of the shadow Health Secretary.
The one thing that the hon. Gentleman failed to do in his speech was confirm that he would match our spending on those new hospitals. The truth is that he cannot match it. He cannot match us on doctors, nurses, beds and


hospitals because there is a big difference between the parties: the Conservative party is always committed to cuts in public services, whereas the Labour party is committed to investment in public services.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: May I warmly thank my right hon. Friend for his statement this afternoon? On behalf of my constituents in Norm triton and throughout the Wakefield area, may I give a big thanks, because Pinderfields hospital is in my constituency, and that is where the new development will take place?
It has taken four years of Labour Government to provide a new hospital. We appealed for 18 years under the Tories, but got nowhere and today we heard sour grapes from the shadow Health Secretary. We must now get on with the job.
Primary health care provision was allied to my right hon. Friend's statement. Will action be taken to reduce the waiting time to see general practitioners in many of the primary care group areas? Will he assure me that a monitoring system will be established to ensure that PFI delivers the work and goods, as it v, ould be in relation to provision funded by taxation? On behalf of staff and patients at Pinderfields hospital, I express my hope that there will be a speedy start to the development of hospital services.

Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind comments. The Wakefield development involves £164 million of investment. As he knows, it is long overdue in the area and will bring benefits to the local health service. However, there will not only be a new hospital at Pinderfields general; I can confirm that the development will also involve additional primary and intermediate care facilities in the north Kirklees area. That is good overall news for the local health service.

Mr. Nick Harvey: I welcome the announcement of the new hospitals and the new emphasis on scanning and diagnostic equipment. However, does the Secretary of State recognise that the real issue is not beds or bricks and mortar, but lack of staff? Is not that at least part of the reason why the first of the hospitals will open in 2006? Has not the use of PFI been the cause of some delay in hospital building, especially in respect of smaller community hospitals in places such as Tiverton and Frome in Somerset? Many of those hospitals feel that development has been delayed specifically because of PFI. Why is there not available in the, public domain more information that compares the value for money of the PFI programme with that of direct financing, and why have some parliamentary questions on the subject taken as long as a year to answer? What level of NHS expertise exists for securing best value for the taxpayer from the PFI programme?

Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman is aware, as we all are, that the trained staff that the NHS needs can be got from somewhere. We are making progress. We have more nurses and doctors and we are getting more radiographers and so on into the system. That is precisely what is needed, but it can be done only through training and recruitment. To achieve that, we must ensure not only the right incentives and pay structures, but the right environment for staff to work in. That is why the new facilities, including new nurseries and so on, will make a

genuine difference for staff when they come on line. We shall get there in time. We have today made an important commitment not only to build more new hospitals, but to train more staff for the future. If I could train more staff more quickly, I would gladly do so, but the simple answer is that it takes time.
I think that the hon. Gentleman and his party are wrong about PFI. I know that there are concerns about it in various parties, but we have today shot one of the major foxes—apart from the one on the Opposition Front Bench—in respect of cuts in bed numbers and PFI. People have said in the past that PFI inevitably leads to fewer beds, but I am afraid that the only thing to which it inevitably leads is more hospitals.

Mrs. Llin Golding: On behalf of the people of north Staffordshire, I thank my right hon. Friend for this truly wonderful news. Having worked in North Staffordshire hospital, I know how much it will mean not only to patients, but to staff. On behalf of north Staffordshire Members of Parliament, may I ask him to receive a delegation to discuss the extension of the medical facility at Keele university? As a former radiographer, I have another question: will he also discuss with us the re-establishment of a school for radiographers?

Mr. Milburn: I am tempted to say that every silver lining has a cloud, but that would be unkind to my hon. Friend and to the other Labour Members who represent north Staffordshire constituencies. They came to see me some months ago and I know that they have campaigned assiduously for the development and that the local newspaper has also campaigned extremely hard. I am aware of the problems in north Staffordshire, which has two sites with old buildings, dilapidated equipment and an environment that is suitable neither for staff nor for patients. We can begin today to put that right. It will take some time to get there, but we will do so, and my hon. Friend's constituents will have precisely the sort of modern and up-to-date facilities that they have long deserved.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Just as I welcomed announcements of new hospital buildings under Conservative Governments, I welcome the same announcements from a Labour Government. I will welcome such developments even more when they are built—if they are built. But what a great shame that I cannot join the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and welcome a new hospital in south Staffordshire. The Minister talked about Leicester and Lewisham, but he did not mention Lichfield. What can he say today to reassure people in my constituency who, for the past three and a half years, have known that our minor injuries unit, renal dialysis unit, day surgery unit and maternity unit are under threat, if not that the Victoria and Hammerwich hospitals are under threat of total closure? Can he give them any reassurance?

Mr. Milburn: I shall gladly look at the situation in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but if I were him I would be cautious. Before he starts making commitments that his Front-Bench spokesmen clearly are not prepared to


make, he and his party must say where on earth they will get the resources from to pay for additional beds or new hospitals. Unless he does that, his points are irrelevant.

Ms Joan Ryan: On behalf of my constituents and all the people of Enfield, I should like to say how important and welcome is today's announcement of the success of the bids not just for Chase Farm hospital but also for North Middlesex hospital, which will make a big difference to the delivery of health care in Enfield.
The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) talked about expansion under the previous Government, but my right hon. Friend will know from our meetings that, for many years, Chase Farm hospital was under threat of closure. Because of that threat, it was badly run down and local people lost confidence in it, and, when the Government were elected, staff morale was at the lowest possible point. Labour promised that we would turn all that round and that Chase Farm would have a secure future. I am so pleased that we can say today that we are delivering on that promise, and that Chase Farm has a secure future and will go from strength to strength in serving the people of Enfield. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS trust and the North Middlesex Hospital NHS trust, the senior management and all the staff on their work in making the bids robust and successful?

Mr. Milburn: I pay tribute to all involved in putting together the bids, which require a huge amount of effort and work. A great volume of papers has rightly to be prepared. The hon. Member for Woodspring asked earlier about the approvals process, but it would be pretty surprising if we did not have a proper approvals process to demonstrate affordability and value for money—precisely the sort of things that are necessary in the NHS. I also pay tribute to the staff at Chase Farm who have sometimes worked in pretty difficult surroundings. I hope that today's announcement will bring them good heart and good cheer and a bit of optimism for the future.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be brief during statements. The House will realise that there is a time limit on the important debate which follows. I appeal for brief questions so that as many Back Benchers as possible can participate.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Secretary of State's announcement will be welcome to many hospitals, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, Bedford hospital has been very much at the end of the line for finance since the old days of the resource allocation working party. It desperately needs a new mortuary. Can he hold out any hope from these announcements that it will get one promptly? What can he say on this important subject?

Mr. Milburn: The situation in Bedford will be a matter for local and regional discretion. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that the Government are dramatically increasing capital budgets, first to the regions and then to the individual trusts. More money will go to

the trusts than ever before, and they have a discretion to use that as they see fit. It is not for me to second-guess that. If there is a problem in the provision of mortuary pathology services, that should be taken up with the trust management and the regional office management. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would care to write to me about specific matters, I shall be glad to consider them.

Mr. Alan Meale: I add my congratulations to the Secretary of State on these magnificent and momentous decisions which are much in line with the approach of previous Labour Governments to the national health service, and contrary to the weasel words of the Opposition, who have tried to turn this into a party political issue connected with the general election. As the Secretary of State said, some of the new hospitals will be in Tory constituencies.
May I say on behalf of the people of central Nottinghamshire, particularly those who work in the health service, that, with the Secretary of State's help, we will make every endeavour to deliver and to continue to improve our health services in the area?

Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has spoken to me about the problem in the Central Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS trust, specifically at King's Mill hospital. I pay tribute to the work that he has done on behalf of the local community. Frankly, this investment should have been made in these areas many years ago. Everyone understands that—the opportunity was there. For 18 years, another Government were in power who could have made that capital investment. Sadly, they decided to put other priorities first. Their priority was not investment in the national health service.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I take the Secretary of State's statement at face value. It indicated a huge additional investment in the health service. I share the gratitude of north Staffordshire for the huge capital project in the area that will benefit many of my constituents. Will he give an assurance that it is not just the number of patients treated in the NHS that matters, but the outcome of those projects. Will he assure me that the position of those with mental illness and chronic illness will not be overlooked under the NHS plan and in the encouraging announcement that he has just made? He knows my interest in the definition of personal social care, and the ability of people with chronic illness to get the medical treatments they need, which sadly they often have to pay for.

Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman is well versed in these issues, and widely respected on both sides of the House for his views on the national health service. He is right that the NHS is having to manage more mental illness and chronic illness than at any time before. I am pleased that there will be facilities for people with chronic illness and mental illness, including a provision in Bristol, in the area of his hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox).

Mr. Marsha Singh: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement? I am absolutely thrilled, as the people of Bradford will be, because the hospitals in my constituency serve all of


Bradford. I am delighted that, after years of health service cuts, we now have a Government who deliver on their promises. We do not need to electioneer on this subject, because my constituents know that the health service will not be safe under the Tories, whereas it is under Labour. [Interruption.]

Mr. Milburn: Wait until the real electioneering starts!
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The announcement about Bradford involves a significant investment—more than £100 million. I am well aware that some of the buildings at the Bradford Royal infirmary date from the 1930s, and that at the St. Luke's site they date back even before that to the 19th century. I am well aware of the difficulties that staff and patients have had to put up with for many years. I hope that we can make a start on the project in the Bradford area as soot as possible. It will increase the number of beds, and provide investment in extra rehabilitation services that are sorely needed.

Mr. David Heath: The majority of the announcements were about large, acute hospitals serving urban populations. What progress is being made on replacing community hospitals, which often face the same problems as old, Victorian buildings in need of refurbishment? They serve smaller towns and rural areas, and include the Victoria hospital, Frome in my constituency.

Mr. Milburn: That is an important issue. The Under-Secretary of State for Health my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), has today announced extra investment o1 £13.6 million in one such community hospital at Sheppey to modernise its facilities. It is important that we apply the same rigour to smaller developments as we apply to big acute schemes. When we came to office, there were many developments in the pipeline that were not getting anywhere. We had to take some difficult decisions about prioritisation. We have done that, and it is now paying dividends. Communities are beginning to get the acute hospitals that they need. I now want to move on to the next phase.
We need to advance the private finance initiative, so that the benefits of private finance go beyond purely the acute sector and into the immediate sector, primary care and the development of community hospitals.

Dr. Doug Naysmith: I thank my right hon. Friend for his announcement, particularly in the context of its effect on mental health services in the Bristol area. There were many other good things in the announcement, but the five Bristol Members have pressed my right hon. Friend for such a statement for some time.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the response of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was incredibly curmudgeonly, given that his constituents will also benefit?

Mr. Milburn: At best, it was politically inept. I would have expected the hon. Gentleman to welcome two major developments in his area. I find it bizarre that he did not, and I shall be interested to see his press releases later.
My hon. Friend has lobbied and campaigned assiduously for these developments for many years, in the context of both acute and mental health services. They are long overdue, and I hope that they are warmly welcomed in the area.

Mr. Roger Gale: I am sure that those representing the constituencies in which hospitals have been announced will, when they are built—if they are built—be as pleased as I was when Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital was built in Margate. Along with many other hospitals, it was built under the last Government. The Secretary of State should bear in mind the fact that building hospitals is not the prerogative of any one Government; it is welcomed on both sides of the House.
The Secretary of State said that modern medicine could not and should not be practised in out-of-date, clapped-out hospitals. Nunnery Fields hospital, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), is one such: it needs to be closed, and indeed it was scheduled for closure.
Because of the closure of so many residential and nursing home beds—the Secretary of State did not comment on that when asked about it by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)—we have a desperate shortage of beds, and a problem of bed blocking, in east Kent. The Secretary of State has two letters from me on his desk on the subject, awaiting answer. Will he give an undertaking that Nunnery Fields hospital will not close until a replacement has been provided, and that this glossy programme will include such a replacement?

Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman said that there had been a lot of new hospital development under the last Government. Let me correct him. Between 1980 and 1997, the last Government gave the go-ahead for seven hospital schemes worth over £40 million. During our first three years in office, we gave the go-ahead for 33 schemes worth over £40 million. The hon. Gentleman should put the situation in perspective.
I know that the hon. Gentleman has had to make difficult decisions about his position relating to the reconfiguration in east Kent, and I am well aware of the local controversy surrounding the issue. I hope that today's announcement of an investment of £102 million in new facilities in east Kent will help.
As for bed blocking, the hon. Gentleman knows that we have made resources available to Kent county council, and have also provided resources for intermediate services through the PFI. If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about social services expenditure in the area, he might have a word with his Front-Bench team, and persuade them to give a commitment to match our additional expenditure on social services.

Ms Joan Walley: May I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), and say a big thank you on behalf of everyone in north Staffordshire who has supported the campaign of the local newspaper, The Sentinel, and every member of the North Staffordshire Hospital NHS trust who has worked hard—under the leadership of David Fillingham—to get the bid


together and meet the deadlines? May I also thank my right hon. Friend for taking a personal interest in the health needs of north Staffordshire?
Will my right hon. Friend tell us how much money north Staffordshire will receive? May I invite him to visit the area, and to take a close interest in every single development that takes place?
This is wonderful news, and we have real cause for celebration after all those years of no investment.

Mr. Milburn: They do not give up in north Staffordshire!
I will try to pay the area a visit. On the investment, we have put in £224 million. That is a very substantial amount, but the state of the buildings means that it is needed. It will mean that there will be 131 additional beds in the area overall, and I hope that that will be much welcomed too.
Another pleasing element of the north Staffordshire proposals is that the people in the hospital got together with those in the primary care and the community sectors to agree a joint bid. I hope that that will mean that a great many patients may not need to go to hospital at all. That is a good thing: it is a model proposal and it is quite right for us to give it the go-ahead.

Mr. Peter Luff: Does the Secretary of State understand that, although his promise of new facilities at Kidderminster looks like a pretty straightforward bribe to save the Wyre Forest seat at the next election, it should still be good news for many of my constituents in Worcestershire too? However, given the higher mortality rate that always couples out-of-hours surgery and the risks associated with any invasive surgery, is he satisfied that it is safe to provide such a facility many miles from the nearest district general hospital?

Mr. Milburn: I am satisfied about that. The hon. Gentleman alludes to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock), the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department. My hon. Friend has worked long and hard to secure that investment for his constituents. He has not been helped by those in the area who have ignored the best clinical advice, which comes from local consultants and GPs. They confirm what we know—that, sadly, it is not clinically safe to continue to provide the existing range of services in Kidderminster. We are doing what must be done, and ploughing in the additional investment for which my hon. Friend has quite rightly campaigned. I am very pleased that we have been able to give that investment the go-ahead, so that the Kidderminster area can have the modern, up-to-date facilities—and the new type of hospital—that it needs.

Dr. Lynne Jones: I too welcome today's announcement of significant investment in Birmingham. That investment will go on new facilities at the City Birmingham hospital, and on a new hospital to replace the Selly Oak and Queen Elizabeth hospitals. We have waited a very long time to replace the mixed-sex wards in old Victorian work houses, such as those that I visited at Selly Oak last month. However, my right hon. Friend will be aware that there is considerable anxiety that

the taxpayer should not be taken for a ride by private finance companies. Will he assure my constituents that, if public finance proves to offer better value, it will be made available within the same time scale as private finance?

Mr. Milburn: Yes that is always the case. We test developments to determine what will provide the best value for money—providing public-sector cash through the Exchequer, or getting the investment from the private sector. In fact, my hon. Friend will know that the public sector provides the cash anyway. In a sense, it is the same as taking out a mortgage, which is what everyone does to buy a house. It should be no different when it comes to paying for hospitals. At the end of the period—30 years, or whatever it is—if the local health service wants to have the hospital back, that is fine and dandy: the local service will get it back.
When I inspected some of the facilities in Birmingham, I was impressed by the strength of the case mounted by the local health service, and depressed by the state of some of the buildings. They are very old and extremely dilapidated, and this investment is long overdue. I believe that the investment of almost £300 million in new facilities in the Birmingham area will make a substantial difference to health care for patients and to the working environment for staff.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Today's statement by the Secretary of State is very bold, and welcome for that reason. Will he explain why the proposals do not amount to privatisation? The Labour party was dead against the private finance initiative before the 1997 general election. He will know that the Duchess of Kent's hospital in Catterick—in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague)—recently closed. Will he assure the House that, in addition to the expenditure announced in today's statement, extra resources will be given year on year to hospitals such as the Friarage, so that they can take the additional patients that the NHS now has to treat?

Mr. Milburn: With respect, that is precisely what is happening. For the next financial year from April 2001, health authority budgets will be growing by, on average, 8.9 per cent. I cannot remember the figure for North Yorkshire, but it is a substantial amount of money. Frankly, whereas the previous Government failed to put in that investment, this Government are making that investment. The hon. Lady asks what privatisation is. It is forcing people to pay for their hip, knee, hernia and cataract operations: the policy of her hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox).

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I thank my right hon Friend warmly on behalf of the people of Milton Keynes for his announcement today of a diagnostic and treatment centre at Milton Keynes general hospital. I welcome the recognition of the special problems that Milton Keynes faces because of its fast population growth of 5 per cent. every year. Will my right hon. Friend contrast today's announcement with the historic underfunding of Milton Keynes, as part of Buckinghamshire, under the Conservatives?
Given that there are 16 new centres, will my right hon. Friend give some thought to encouraging networking between them and the existing centre at the Central Middlesex, so that the lessons can be learned about the most effective way to run such centres?

Mr. Milburn: That is an extremely sensible suggestion. We are talking about a new type of development for the NHS, so it would be sensible to learn from experience and from the success at the Central Middlesex. Milton Keynes will receive an additional £9 million of investment in the local community health service. My hon. Friend has raised the rate of population growth with me on a number of occasions, including in our discussions about this new development. I am pleased to tell her that the proposal that we have accepted today will bring about a 16 per cent. increase in the number of operations in the local area.

Mr. Roy Beggs: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on this unprecedented announcement? I have been here for a long time and there never has been such an announcement before. In congratulating him on the proposed new build, I welcome also the plans to recruit and retain even more nurses, doctors, therapists, scientists and technicians. There Will be some envy in those constituencies that are not currently benefiting from the additional money. Will the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland be kept advised of the excellent progress being made in the NHS here to ensure that we can maintain comparable standards?
May I personally thank the Secretary of State for the decision that has not yet been mentioned—to provide patients with privacy and dignity by getting rid of mixed wards?

Mr. Milburn: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. In this day and age, people should expect that, if they go into hospital, the basics will be right; the food should be good, the care should be provided, the wards should be clean and they should be given privacy and treated with dignity, particularly as so many people who use hospitals are elderly. That is precisely what we must provide and what will be possible in the new hospital developments. Over time, we will make that possible everywhere. The hon. Gentleman knows that we have

regular dialogue between the four United Kingdom Health Ministers, and I very much hope that that continues in the future.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: Substantial numbers of my constituents are treated daily at Pinderfields hospital in temporary huts that were erected for casualties of the second world war. I listened with amazement to the comments of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) in response to this statement. In 18 years, all we got in Wakefield from the Conservative Government in response to our problems was a private hospital, built at Methley Park, which drew staff out of the NHS to treat people in the private sector. I warmly welcome the Government's announcement today.
In respect of PFI—which may be applied in many of the schemes—there are anxieties among low-paid, non-clinical staff about their treatment. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give to ensure that those people are properly valued within the NHS?

Mr. Milburn: On the last issue, my hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have changed the rules. Under the previous Government, the policy was one of compulsory competitive tendering and compulsory market-testing. Inevitably, that meant that in every one of the PFI deals that went ahead, low-paid staff were automatically transferred out to the private sector. That is no longer the position. It is now a matter of discretion for the local trust to determine whether it wants to retain services such as catering, portering and cleaning in-house, or to transfer staff to the private sector. As my hon. Friend knows, we have taken important steps to protect staff better if they transfer.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend who has campaigned long and hard for a new hospital in Wakefield. He knows that I am aware of the appalling facilities that staff and patients have had to tolerate at Pinderfields. He knows fine well that the local community, unlike those on the Opposition Front Bench, will welcome today's announcement.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Unfortunately we must move on.

Points of Order

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Let me take the point of order of the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who has given notice of it.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Tuesday, the Government leaked details of their proposals on competitiveness to the press well before the documents were available to hon. Members. In answering a point of order from me, you said that you took the matter seriously, and you asked the Secretary of State to investigate the leak and report the results to the House.
Today, the Department of Trade and Industry has replied to a parliamentary written question. The answer is inadequate. It refers to the receipt of details only by the Financial Times. However, it was clear from my original point of order on the matter that other newspapers were given information. For example, The Daily Telegraph carried a full and detailed quote, which exactly matches page 5 of one of the documents.
Furthermore, the so-called investigation simply refers to the documents being "obtained by" the Financial Times. We know how they were obtained; the front page of the Financial Times refers to a DTI insider, who provided the information. The DTI investigation ignored that, and the reply therefore implies that the documents were stolen by the press rather than handed out by members of the Government or those who work for them.
The investigation is incomplete and partial. It is a further abuse, and shows contempt of the House. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, not to accept a brush-off, indeed, a defiance of your initial ruling, but to ask the Department to try a little harder to ascertain the way in which the leak happened, and who was responsible for leaking documents in advance and thus denying the House its scrutiny role.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. As he said, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has answered a parliamentary question about the circumstances surrounding the publication of the White Paper. If the right hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with the response, he is entitled to pursue the matter through other

parliamentary means, including tabling further questions to the Secretary of State. If he does that, I shall be very interested to read the answers.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to draw your attention to the Procedure Committee report on the election of a Speaker. It is an excellent report which I contributed. However, page xxxvi reports on the only Division that took place during our formal proceedings. The Division list shows that the majority of the Committee supported the proposal for an alternative vote. However, the report concludes that the exhaustive ballot proposal was the Committee's preferred option. Could you advise me, Mr. Speaker, on the way in which the conflict between the text of the report and the outcome of the Division, as reported in the proceedings, can be resolved? How can we proceed?

Mr. Speaker: The House knows that the report was published with great speed. Unfortunately an error was made in printing a Division list in the minutes of the proceedings. A correction is being issued.

Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker Could you arrange to set the record straight? The Secretary of State for Health said that Whipps Cross hospital was in the constituency of the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). Although the hospital serves the hon. Gentleman's constituents—who will benefit enormously—it is in my constituency of Leyton and Wanstead. I thank the Secretary of State on behalf of the constituents of Leyton and Wanstead and of all the surrounding areas for giving the go-ahead for that £184 million project.

Mr. Speaker: Then that hospital has a very good Member of Parliament.

BILL PRESENTED

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Secretary Clare Short, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Cook Mr. Andrew Smith, Mr. George Foulkes and Mr. Chris Mullin, presented a Bill to make provision relating to the provision of assistance for countries outside the United Kingdom; to make provision with respect to certain international financial institutions and the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 26 February, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 49].

Phillips Inquiry

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Mr. Speaker: We come now to the main business. I remind the House that I have put a 15-minute limit on speeches from 4.30 pm to 6.30 pm.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): On 26 October 2000, the Government published the report of the BSE inquiry. I set out the report's key conclusions and outlined a package of measures for the benefit of people suffering from variant CJD and the families of those who have already died of the disease. The House will want to mow that, since that time, another six people have died of variant CJD, bringing the number who have died to 86. The variant CJD surveillance unit has identified eight people who are suffering from variant CJD.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced his intention to make interim compensation payments of £25,000 to each of the families of those who have died and to the families whose loved ones are still alive. He has already established a care package for people suffering from variant CJD which is intended to support patients in the community. The care package covers the elements of care that cannot be readily supplied by local health and social services. My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health will give further details of the care package and compensation arrangements when she replies to the debate.
Last Friday, the Government published their substantive interim response to the BSE inquiry report, with positive responses to each of the 167 recommendations. The response sets out what has already been done, what is under way, what more the Government intend to do, and how others will be involved in the final outcome. The interim response pros ides the basis for a wide-ranging public consultation before a comprehensive final response is published later this year. I published the response last Friday to give parliamentarians and others a chance to consider the proposals before today's debate.
The inquiry team found serious shortcomings in the previous Government's handling of BSE. The inquiry's report documents institutional and political failure up to the highest levels. There was an inability to focus clearly on the emerging problem of BSE in cattle and to take charge. Many of those dealing with the problem hoped and believed that a link between BSE and human health would never be found. No contingency plans were made in case a link was discovered. Public protection measures were not implemented and enforced with sufficient vigour.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Although I appreciate that the Minister did not have responsibility for agriculture at the time, does he recall that, as long ago as July 1992, I and others were asking questions about the reticence of the then Ministry about the precise issues to which he is now referring? Does he recognise that the Phillips report demonstrates that the answers that we were given in this place were misleading and inadequate? I do not know whether that was intentional or unintentional,

and the Phillips report does not address that issue. Is the Minister aware, however, that farmers and CJD families feel bitterly betrayed by the failure of everyone who was in office at that time to apologise or to explain the misinformation that was given to the House and the public?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman makes his points in his own way, and of course he anchors his remarks in the Phillips report. I am being very careful—the matter is of course contentious and enormously important—to ensure that, as I go through the criticisms of the Government's handling of BSE, every single point that I make is founded in the Phillips report. The issue of communication between Departments is clearly referred to in Phillips. Phillips said that a lack of communication led to delays in taking necessary action.
It is telling that, on issues of interdepartmental communication and contingency planning, not one but two former Cabinet Ministers had their evidence rejected by the inquiry. In some crucial spheres, BSE policy was slow in development, sometimes lagging behind the latest scientific developments. The official line, that the risk of transmissibility was remote and that beef was safe, did not recognise the possible validity of any other view. Dissident scientists tended to be treated with derision. Dispute displaced debate.
Ministers and officials tended to be over-reliant on scientific advisory committees for policy advice. They failed to recognise that the proper role of advisory committees is to advise on science, not to make decisions for the Government on issues of policy and implementation. The Government's scientific advisers were not always given a complete picture of what was happening "on the ground" in terms of enforcement and implementation. Consequently, on certain occasions, scientific advice was not based on the full facts as known to the then Conservative Government.

Dr. Ian Gibson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there were attempts by senior civil servants to lean on scientists to suppress their data and interpret them in a manner that fitted in with the political picture at that time?

Mr. Brown: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, but it is not founded in Lord Phillips's findings themselves. I want to confine my comments to Lord Phillips's findings. There is ample evidence of failings—institutional failings and political failings—in Lord Phillips's findings to give parliamentarians on both sides of the House tremendous cause for concern.
Lord Phillips's inquiry identified significant failures in enforcement of safety measures. Lord Phillips explicitly says that that was made worse by the prevailing political desire for a "culture of deregulation".
From as early as 24 February 1988—this relates to the points made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)—Ministers were aware of concerns among civil servants about a possible link between BSE and human health. Those concerns were not shared with the public. The Government failed to be completely open about BSE and did not trust the public to understand


complex issues of risk and uncertainty. That resulted in a presentational policy whose object, in Lord Phillips's own words, "was sedation".

Mr. Eric Martlew: I have a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Lowther, of Cumbra Park hotel, in Carlisle. Their daughter Victoria was one of the very early tragic victims of variant CJD. They have asked me to ask various questions, which I shall do in writing to the Minister so that he is able to respond to them in detail. I should like, however, to deal with two points. First, Mr. and Mrs. Lowther have studied the Phillips inquiry very carefully, but have come to the conclusion that it poses more questions than it answers. Secondly, if what the Phillips inquiry says is correct, why is no one standing trial? Why are not ex-Ministers or senior civil servants standing trial for what some people believe is the manslaughter of at least 86 people to date, and probably many hundreds in the future?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Before the Minister responses, may I appeal to the House for very short interventions? There is very limited time for today's debate and the many important points that I know that hon. Members are keen to make. Brevity would be appreciated by everyone.

Mr. Brown: Lord Phillips is very clear on the point of individual blame. However, although shortcomings and failings of individuals are identified and carefully listed in the report, Lord Phillips says something to the effect that those who come to our report looking to allocate blame to individuals will go away disappointed. He identifies institutional failings and political failings, but he does not put the blame for the tragedy that has occurred on any one individual.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Minister has just stated that, in 1988, certain civil servants felt that some of the information available then should have been shared with the public. Is he of that view?

Brown: I am being careful to respond to Lord Phillips's findings because that is my responsibility as a Minister. I published the interim response in advance so that we could all read it. The report contains 167 recommendations and we all have a right to consider the Government's interim response. I do not want to go further than what Lord Phillips has said and found, and I am being careful not to treat the House to my personal views. Having studied the matter with some care as part of my ministerial responsibility, I have of course formed personal views, but my responsibility to the country as a Minister has to come first.
Lord Phillips makes it clear that in giving public assurances about the safety of beef, it was a mistake for Ministers to go beyond the advice that they had received from officials. I have learned that lesson, and I do not intend to make that mistake. Ministers should have stressed the important role of public protection measures rather than giving the impression that BSE did not pose a risk to humans. The consequence was that when the link between BSE and vCJD was announced, the public felt betrayed—a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew).
Lord Phillips found that, for the human victims of variant CJD, there was significant variation in the standard of care provided by the national health service. Let me remind the House that variant CJD is a terrible disease. For some of the victims and their families, the tragic horror of the disease was made more difficult to bear by lack of appropriate treatment, assistance and support. Those were Lord Phillips's findings.
Although the inquiry looked primarily at how the previous Government responded to the challenges of BSE and vCJD, it raised issues that went much wider than BSE. Those issues, affect the whole process of government, across all Departments.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: This is obviously a difficult issue, but given the lateness with which the link was recognised and acknowledged and the long interval that could still lead to a substantial number of cases, is the Minister satisfies that we have enough research and investment in place? If and when we find that this is a much bigger problem than 86 people—which could still happen—we should know how to deal with it. We should use the time lag to prepare.

Mr. Brown: The amount of research that the Government are undertaking into transmissible spongiform encephalopathies has been enhanced in my time as Minister. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are still things that we do not understand. It is important to keep the research programme fully funded and properly developing. As for the total number of human victims, I am satisfied that the public protection measures now in place protect the public, but I cannot give the House a forecast of how many victims of what happened in the late 1980s and early 1990s there maybe.

Mr. Nick Harvey: The right hon. Gentleman says that he is confident that the measures in place to protect the public are adequate. Will he say a word about the methods used to incinerate and dispose of infected carcases? Does he have every confidence in those methods and is he sure that there is no risk to public health from those processes?

Mr. Brown: I am satisfied that that is the case. I recently visited one of the disposal plants, in Widnes, with my Spanish counterpart, who is interested in how we organise these things here. I am satisfied that the arrangements in place now are satisfactory and secure. We do not know how much variant CJD is present in the population as a result of things that happened in the past. Until we do, it is difficult to give the House accurate forecasts of the future number of victims of the condition.
The whole affair has raised wider issues than BSE; it goes to the heart of how government works. A number of major cross-cutting topics run right through Lord Phillips's report and findings. I shall run through the principal ones. Lord Phillips identifies the need for effective management of scientific advisory committees and of how scientific advice is used in developing policy; the need for greater openness in government; and the need for a consistent and proportionate approach to the assessment, management and communication of risk and uncertainty. It is a notoriously difficult area.

Mr. David Heath: The right hon. Gentleman is touching now on the open provision of


information to the public. I know his personal views on the matter, which are robust. Why did the Government resist the amendments tabled by me and many others to the Freedom of Information Bill, which would have entrenched in statute the right to information and factual advice provided to Ministers—exactly the core of Lord Phillips's findings?.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is putting two separate sets of advice together. One is the scientific advice on which Ministers base their policy decisions. It is the Government's view that that should be in the public domain. The other is policy advice to Ministers. Ministers are clearly entitled to consider a range of options before coming forward and defending what they have done. The hon. Gentleman takes me slightly outside my ministerial responsibilities.

Dr. Brian Iddon: I understand that the criticisms levelled at serving civil servants have been reviewed by Sheila Forbes and that the report is now complete. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would have been helpful for hon. Members to have seen the report ahead of the debate? Does he intend to publish it so that we know what it contains?

Mr. Brown: I have thought carefully about that. I have not read the report, although I can do so. I have deliberately not done so because I believe that disciplinary matters within the civil service must be for permanent secretaries and ultimately the Cabinet Secretary. We should think carefully before we, as parliamentarians, decide to make assessments about the capabilities of individual civil servants. We should also think about when we should intervene and when we should not. If the House wants me to read the Forbes report, I will, but it is my considered view that I should not, and that it should be left to the permanent secretaries.

Tony Wright: My right hon. Friend has made a robust response to the issue, on which I congratulate him. He said in an interview on 12 February:
The scientific advice that informs the ministerial decisions that I make is all going to go into the public domain.
That is excellent. Will that apply across government? Will all the scientific advice to Ministers be public?

Mr. Brown: I shall answer to the House for what I am accountable for. The scientific advice that informs my ministerial decision making will go into the public domain. That is my commitment to the House and my response to my hon. Friend's question. There may be all sorts of caveats involved in other Ministers' day-to-day operations of which I am not aware, so I cannot give a blanket response; but where a policy decision is made in MAFF and that decision is informed by scientific appraisal, the appraisal will be put into the public domain. People will be able to read it, and I will explain and justify the decisions that I have made. Ultimately, as the Minister, I am accountable to the House.
Lord Phillips identifies the need for rigour in the development and implementation of policy. Of course, we all want to be rigorous in the development of policy, but how is that to be tested? Surely pursing the information on which the decision has been based, if it is a scientific issue, in the public domain and having it tested in the

House in front of Select Committees is the best way to test it. Lord Phillips identifies the importance of having the right structure of government and legislative framework in place.
Even before Lord Phillips's team reported, the new Labour Government had already made significant changes to address the points that I have mentioned. Again, I should like to take the House through the most significant of them. We have set up the Food Standards Agency as an independent agency with consumer protection as its main objective. Its board meetings are held in public. It puts its advice to Ministers in the public domain. We have opened up scientific advisory committees to much greater public scrutiny, including the appointment of committee members specifically representing consumers. A new code of practice for scientific advisory committees is being developed, covering many issues raised by the inquiry. The House will want to know that we will be consulting on that later in the spring.
The chief scientific adviser's new "Guidelines 2000" make it clear that Departments should think ahead, identifying at an early stage the issues where scientific advice is needed. Departments should get a wide range of advice from the best sources, particularly where there is scientific uncertainty. Departments should publish the scientific advice they receive and all the relevant papers.
We have begun the process of modernising Government and of civil service reform. The aim is to improve strategic policy making and to promote a genuinely joined-up approach to problem solving. Departments, including those within the devolved Administrations, have been forging closer links to improve co-operation and consultation on matters of shared interest. For example, formal arrangements, such as the National Zoonoses Group, chaired by the chief medical officer and with members from the Department of Heath, MAFF, the Food Standards Agency and the devolved Administrations, are supported by greater informal contact. The secretariat for the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee is now drawn from three departments—MAFF, the Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency.
We are proposing to enhance the role of the chief veterinary officer to make it comparable with that of the Government's chief medical officer. In future, the chief veterinary officer will advise the Government as a whole on veterinary matters and may be asked to provide advice for publication.
We are making progress in relation to risk management. All Departments have prepared a risk management framework. Some frameworks—including those of MAFF and the Department of Health—have already been published. The Food Standards Agency has published for consultation draft statements on its approach to risk. The interdepartmental liaison group on risk assessment and its subgroup on risk communication now ensure better sharing of information between Government officials and a more consistent approach to risk across Departments.
We have passed the Freedom of Information Act 2000, creating a statutory right of access to all information held by public bodies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, unless it is covered—as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) pointed out—by certain tightly defined conditions: for example, where disclosure would be illegal or against the public interest.
All that is real progress. The inquiry report itself acknowledges that
the scenery has shifted very considerably from that with which we made ourselves familiar".
Progress has been made, but there is more to do.
Institutional shortcomings cannot be corrected overnight. The whole approach and behaviour of Departments and individuals will need to change to ensure that the lessons identified by the inquiry are properly absorbed and implemented.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The right hon. Gentleman gives a most impressive account of the administrative action that he has taken in his Department and in respect of matters for which he is directly and currently accountable. Does he acknowledge that his tenure—although, on merit, he may well remain in his post for a long time—is limited? What is needed is an assurance that can be guaranteed only by a legal requirement of openness—one that endures and enables members of the public to know about the scientific advice that is being proffered, precisely so as to ensure that the very measures that the right hon. Gentleman has taken, which he has outlined at length, are pursued by his successors.

Mr. Brown: In responding to the Phillips report and in presenting the Government's interim response to the House, I do so for the Government. I am the Minister who co-ordinates the Government's response on the matter; I do not speak only for MAFF. When I make a commitment for MAFF, I am careful to make that clear. What I cannot do is to cover every possible caveat that might arise in the departmental responsibilities of other Ministers, so I am very careful not to do so. The commitment to be open and to publish the advice that is available to Government from the FSA—the agency, too, has a commitment to meet in public and to put its advice to Government into the public domain—is made on behalf of the Government, not just on behalf of MAFF.

Dr. Iddon: Is not one of the problems the fact that we are entering a more technical age? The scientific advice given to Government is becoming ever more technical; there are several examples of that—on genetic modification, stem-cell technology and BSE. Is it not important that, throughout the civil service—especially at the top, where senior civil servants are advising Ministers—we should introduce more scientific literacy? Are senior Ministers taking measures on that matter?

Mr. Brown: Yes. Indeed, on my arrival at MAFF, I was struck by how much science there is in the Ministry already. As my hon. Friend will know from his experience as a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, there is a programme of research—especially on TSEs—that I have just enhanced. There is certainly a recognition of the point that he makes.

Dr. Gibson: Will my right hon. Friend explain why the Ministry's budget plummeted at the very time it should have been increased so as to investigate the scientific problems to which he referred? The Select Committee

found that, at the time of those problems, the MAFF budget showed the greatest percentage decrease of all departmental budgets.

Mr. Brown: We did not decrease expenditure on TSEs. My hon. Friend is right to note that there was a small downturn in the butget as a whole—a matter that I am trying hard to rectify.
To return to the main thrust of my remarks on the Phillips report, the purpose of the interim response is to hold an open, public consultation before finalising the Government's position. That is the right approach. The questions raised by the inquiry report go to the heart of some of the most difficult aspects of public administration. Although it is unusual, I believe that we are right to seek views on all the central issues raised by the inquiry report, before finalising our response.
The following are among the key questions. What else might be done to ensure that Departments maintain an effective research, management and scientific advisory system? How can Government ensure that the full range of scientific opinions can be heard by those developing policy? Do the initiatives by the Food Standards Agency on openness meet the challenges of public confidence in food safety and the specific lessons of BSE? Is there more that the agency might do?
How might Departments best implement the Government's commitment to trusting the public and continue to develop ways of being open and consulting widely while developing policy? Should the Government do more to increase access to information about publicly funded research and development programmes? What more can be done by Government on risk management in science and in food safety?
Are current and proposed arrangements sufficient to ensure that consumer protection legislation can be properly enforced and its effectiveness monitored? Are there any perceived gaps in the powers available to the Government to respond urgently and proportionately to an apparent hazard to human or animal health?
The interim response sets out the Government's thinking on those issues and on each of the 167 recommendations and lessons of the inquiry report. It is right that we should be open about the mistakes of the past, the action that has been taken to put them right, and the areas where there is still room for improvement.
One central question that remains unresolved is the origin of BSE. The Government—in an initiative taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and me—have asked Professor Gabriel Horn to lead a group that will pull together all the scientific research on the origins of BSE. We expect Professor Horn to make his report in time for inclusion in the Government's final response.
There has been a significant loss of public confidence in the arrangements is for handling food safety and standards, in large part due to the events surrounding BSE. The report of Lord Phillips identifies institutional and political failure throughout the BSE story. Our task today is to do everything we can to ensure that those failures do not happen again. Since coming to office, the Government have committed themselves to a policy of open and transparent working on issues of food safety. Our aim is to provide consumers and others with timely, accurate and science-based information and advice,


enabling people to make informed decisions and choices. To establish credibility, it is necessary to generate trust. Trust can be generated only by openness. Openness requires that, where there is uncertainty, it is recognised and explained.
The BSE inquiry report is an important and thorough piece of work. It documents a national tragedy that has so far claimed the lives of 86 of our fellow citizens and has wreaked havoc on an entire industry. The report sets out what happened, what went right and what went wrong. It sets out lessons for the future. The Government are committed to learning those lessons.
Our interim response is a forward-looking document. It sets out what has been done, what we intend to do, and why. It forms the basis of an important consultation, which I intend to be comprehensive and thorough. I commend both the inquiry report and the Government's interim response to the House.

Mr. Tim Yeo: I welcome this opportunity to debate Lord Phillips' s report, and I pay tribute to Lord Phillips, his team and their advisers for the work which they undertook. This is a most important subject, and I welcome much of what the Minister has said about the report and the steps that have been taken to deal with the problem since the report was published and during the past five years by Governments of both parties.
The Phillips report makes it clear that our knowledge of the issue is still far from perfect. Large gaps remain to be filled, one of which, no doubt, will be addressed by the group to which the Minister has referred. As I said in my initial response on the day that the report was published, I accept its main conclusions, and now that I have had a chance to study it in more detail, I confirm my first impression that it is a comprehensive and broadly fair document.
I have never worked at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in any capacity, so I am not able to judge with certainty the accuracy or wisdom of the Phillips report in every detail. My right hon. Friends who are present—some of whom may seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—all have direct or first-hand experience of many of the matters examined by Lord Phillips, so I look forward to their comments on some of the report's details. However, on behalf of the Conservative party, I should like to make it clear that we recognise that mistakes were made. I profoundly regret the consequences of those mistakes, and we are truly sorry for the tragic outcomes and terrible suffering of victims of variant CJD and their families.

Judy Mallaber: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Yeo: In a moment.
Our first concern and care must be for the victims and their families, and I fully support the action taken by the Government, some of which was set out in the interim response, published last week. I welcome yesterday's announcement on the interim payments to the families.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I welcome what the hon. Gentleman says about apologising to the victims, but the mother of one of them, Anthony Smith—a neighbour of mine—has written to me, saying:
If you get the opportunity, I would like you to ask on my behalf why nothing has been heard from the individuals criticised in the report, not even an apology, they appear to be getting away with murder.
It is a very moving letter, and Irene Smith concludes:
An intelligent, healthy young man has died through ignorance and sometimes it is too painful to bear.
When will the individuals who were criticised apologise publicly?

Mr. Yeo: I naturally sympathise very deeply with the hon. Lady's constituent. The report is extremely circumspect in the criticisms that it makes of individuals. I hope that she has studied the relevant section, because it is clear from Lord Phillips's balanced conclusions that he is rightly reluctant to go too far in blaming any individual.
I would have said this later, but I shall do so now: some of the individuals involved are civil servants who do not have an opportunity to answer for themselves in any case, so pursuing individual criticisms is not a particularly constructive way to address the issue. I am interested in the judgment of the official who explored the possibility of disciplinary action against civil servants. I entirely agree with the Minister that it would be inappropriate for him to become involved in that process in any way, and in his position I certainly would not wish to read the report—

Judy Mallaber: rose—

Dr. Gibson: rose—

Mr. Yeo: I shall give way in a moment.
Nevertheless, the fact that disciplinary action against officials has not been considered necessary reflects the balanced way in which Lord Phillips has addressed individual responsibility.

Judy Mallaber: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Yeo: In a moment.
I return to the question of the families. Finding the right help for people with variant CJD is a challenge, and innovative solutions are needed. Time is of the essence, and the Conservative party pledges its full support for the measures that are needed. I believe that we owe it to the victims and their families to ensure, first, that every possible care and assistance is given to them and, secondly, to ensure that the lessons of this episode are thoroughly learned and applied right across government, not only in Britain but in other countries where BSE may now be an increasing problem. Our experience in Britain—an experience which we would all rather not have had—may have given us knowledge and expertise that will be applicable and valuable elsewhere.

Judy Mallaber: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Yeo: No, it is more important to deal with the issues.
Other countries may want to learn from us, and I am sure that the Minister will facilitate that, where possible. History would rightly condemn us as having failed in our duty if the messages that ring loud and clear from the Phillips report were to be ignored. Lord Phillips did recognise, however, that where mistakes were made, the individuals concerned—ranging from civil servants and scientific advisers to Ministers—acted in good faith, and I welcome that recognition.
Anyone who has served in Government will be acutely aware of the danger and possible unfairness of passing judgment with the benefit of hindsight. Neither Ministers nor civil servants enjoy the luxury of spending days, weeks or even months studying the background to decisions that are taken every day of their lives. Those decisions may subsequently come under close scrutiny, but they are often made when other issues appear to be more important or more urgent, not only to Ministers and their advisers but to the outside world. The Phillips report recognises that fact in relation to several points—for example, in paragraph 1292 of volume 1, it does so specifically in respect of the important issue of the communication of risk.
It is also significant that, even with all the resources at the inquiry's disposal and having studied the subject for three years, the inquiry team concluded that the origin of BSE may never be known. Happily, the report was at least able to dispose of some of the theories on the origin of BSE that had been put about—for example, that it resulted from changes in rendering methods.
Let me move on to three of the key messages in the report.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I respect his tone, but I represent one of the families that was devastated. Ministers were mentioned—for example, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who is not in his place. I do not know whether he has given any indication of why he is absent. Families in my constituency, finding that at one stage his evidence was simply not accepted, feel that he owes them and the House an explanation.

Mr. Yeo: The right hon. Gentleman has put his concern on record, and I am sure that it will be noted by my right hon. and learned Friend.
The first key message is the need for better communication within Whitehall and the ranks of government. That will not come as a great surprise to anyone with inside knowledge of the workings of government. The second key message is the importance of responding in a timely manner to information that becomes available and to unfolding events; and the third is the overriding requirement for openness and transparency. The Minister referred to the collapse of public confidence in the safety of the food chain, and that cannot be fully restored without such openness. That collapse has exacted a heavy toll on consumers, producers and taxpayers. Special care has to be exercised when assurances about food safety are offered to the public.

Mr. David Drew: As well as trying to give confidence, the Government must get regulation right.

Many of us would argue that we do not need more regulation; we need good regulation. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we need to find the necessary resources for that? Will he commit his party to finding those resources to ensure that not only BSE but TSEs are properly monitored and evaluated to ensure that such a disaster never happens again?

Mr. Yeo: I certainly agree that we need better rather than more regulation. Like the Minister, I must take care to make commitments only in respect of matters on which I speak. I said recently in the House that the Conservative party is committed to maintaining the budget that the Minister has managed to secure for his Department. That is the nearest that I can get to answering the hon. Gentleman's question.
The report gave a number of examples of the need for better communication in government. The Minister referred to an example that occurred early in the period studied by the report, when officials at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food recognised that BSE might have implications for human health, but that recognition was not immediately conveyed to the Department of Health. Clearly, vigilance is always needed to ensure that poor communication does not produce bad outcomes and that decisions are not made on the basis of inadequate data. That need is not confined to the relationship between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Health; it extends, as the Government's interim response acknowledges, to relationships with specialist units, other agencies, advisory committees and, indeed, industry.
Communication must now take account of a new factor—devolution. The interim report, if one reads between the lines, shows that devolution has complicated matters. The existence of four Administrations in different parts of the United Kingdom increases the risk that information available to one may not always be passed to another as quickly as it should be, even though that other Administration may need the information. We had an example of that last year, on a matter concerning an environmental health risk rather than a human health risk, when information available to the Ministry of Agriculture in London about the importation of a GM-contaminated crop was not passed to the Scottish Executive in as timely as a manner as the Executive thought necessary.
The Government have set much store by the establishment of the Food Standards Agency. We fully support the agency and I warmly welcome its efforts to establish itself as an independent, authoritative source of advice for consumers on food safety matters. If the agency succeeds in that roles, consumers, producers and taxpayers stand to benefit.

Dr. Gibson: Does the hon. Gentleman remember a former Prime Minister describing the agency as "PR nonsense"?

Mr. Yeo: I do not remember that. We debated the agency in Standing Committee earlier in this Parliament. It is now up and running and it has our support. I wish it well. Having said all that, it seems doubtful that even if the agency had existed in the period covered by the


Phillips inquiry, that fact alone would have prevented, or even significantly alleviated, the difficulties that the inquiry has exposed.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Yeo: I shall give way in a moment.
Lord Phillips concluded that in dealing with BSE the Ministry of Agriculture did not lean in favour of agricultural producers to the detriment of consumers. Although the agency's independence is important and valuable, and is potentially central to its future success, I do not think that it would have made a material difference to the matters that we are debating.

Mr. Nick Brown: There are two different points here. The agency's value in circumstances such as these is that it can make a robust, independent assessment of the science and then put the information in the public domain. Realisation of the link between BSE and vCJD emerged between 1984 and 1996, and, if the agency had existed then, that emerging scientific opinion would have been made public and a response would have been required, which did not happen in the events that Phillips described.

Mr. Yeo: I understand the Minister's point. Nevertheless, it is significant that Lord Phillips said in his summary that he did not think the Ministry of Agriculture—

Mr. Brown: Just to clarify, I was agreeing with that point. The hon. Gentleman was making a separate point.

Mr. Yeo: In that case, there is not a great difference between us.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way'?

Mr. Yeo: No, I am sorry; I am anxious to make progress. Many Members who are directly involved in the report want to speak in the debate, and I did not intend to speak for more than 20 minutes.
Good communication is needed no only within Britain but between the Food Standards Agency and agencies in countries from which we import food. There is concern about that.
I turn now to the second message, which concerned the need for a timely response to new information on emerging problems. I do not pretend that that is an easy balance to strike. The public can be alarmed by an over-hasty response to a situation, and the ability of producers to deliver safe, healthy food at prices that suit consumers might even be jeopardised by excessive caution or over-regulation. Nevertheless, the Phillips report suggests that inaction and de lay can pose equal, perhaps even greater, dangers.
The safety of the food chain and the protection of consumers must always be the paraniount concern of the Government. Preserving that safety often requires prompt action. The precautionary principle has an important role to play. Timely action, even if it is embarrassing to the Government, inconvenient to the industry or costly to

consumers, often offers better value in every respect in the long run than a delayed response, which can be more drastic, expensive and time consuming.
There are a number of examples demonstrating that need, which I will not go into now because they are in the report for everybody to read. One of the lessons to be learned from those examples is that it is not only the decision but its implementation that has to be timely. Sometimes that is difficult because when a policy maker makes a decision in a structure as complex as government, the speed with which it is implemented is not always visible to the policy maker, or indeed the public, until a retrospective study such as this is undertaken.

Mr. Nick Ainger: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Yeo: No, I have given way several times. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends are referred to in the report, and my giving way will reduce their opportunities to contribute to the debate,
The third and crucial message from the report is the need for greater openness in Government decision making on food safety issues. It goes without saying that statements on such a sensitive subject by Ministers and their advisers must be meticulously accurate. The publication, without any censorship or editing, of advice that Ministers receive from scientific and other bodies can contribute to greater transparency. The need for openness is accompanied by a difficult requirement for Governments to achieve—the need to strike the right note in offering consumers reassurance about food safety. As the Phillips report points out, when the full consequences of BSE began to be understood, the public felt that early statements had been too reassuring. That territory has been explored many times already.
Today's debate is unlikely to be the last on this subject in the House. A great deal more work needs to be done on BSE and CJD if these matters are to be completely understood.
Other concerns are sometimes expressed, such as those about sheep. We do not—and may not—know for many years the full consequences of BSE in Britain, let alone in those countries where the incidence of BSE is increasing and the same steps have not been taken to deal with it. There are alternative theories about the causes of CJD and its link to BSE. The messages of the Phillips report apply not only to BSE and beef, but across the food chain and beyond. As the Minister said, the systemic failures that Lord Phillips identifies will be completely eradicated only by a wholehearted effort on the part of Ministers and civil servants. If they are eradicated, the sad history of BSE in Britain will at least have had one beneficial result. I join the Minister in commending the report to the House.

3 pm

Dr. David Clark: I thank Lord Phillips and his team for their work in producing such a long and useful report. I also thank the Government for establishing the inquiry. It is interesting that it took a new Government to wipe the slate clean and have a proper examination of what went wrong. We suspected that things were going wrong, and Lord Phillips confirms that. The report is workmanlike, thorough and exhaustive, but it contains much new information.
Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I was invited by Lord Phillips to make a statement to the inquiry, which I was glad to do. For the five years between 1987 and 1992, I was the shadow agriculture spokesman and opposed Conservative Members who were in government and who are here today. We had four major robust debates on the issue, including on some Supply days. I did not apologise for that then, and I do not apologise for it now.
My experiences during that time convinced me that, unless we had a freedom of information Act and legislative rights, the consumer could never be properly protected. That is why, when I was in government, I was so pleased to publish the White Paper on freedom of information. I was also pleased to chair the Cabinet Committee that was involved in setting up the Food Standards Agency. Although those two measures do not mean that problems like BSE or TSE will not arise again, we are now more likely to know what is going on. I do not apologise for that.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will reconsider the Forbes report. I understand his argument, although I hope that he will not discuss it with his permanent secretary. Many wrongs were done when BSE was emerging, and people may have died as a result. Someone must be responsible. My experience of the civil service—fine as it is—is that there is an ethos of self-protection.

Mr. Nick Brown: I understand my right hon. Friend's point, but I must emphasise that the inquiries by the civil service commissioners go only as far as the five individuals who are still serving civil servants. What he suggests would probably run wider than that.

Dr. Clark: I accept that, but I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the report's introduction. It says:
At times bureaucratic processes resulted in unacceptable delay in giving effect to policy.
Even after Ministers reached a decision, there was a delay in the bureaucratic process. We need to be certain in public that that process and the people who run it have put those wrongs right.
Lord Phillips' report is a fine analytical work. If I have one criticism it is that he does not pick up on the nuances or the pressure that was placed on politicians who attempted to raise the issue. I shall concentrate on the period between 1987 and 1992. I believe—I think the report supports my view—that the Conservative Government made a series of basic errors of judgment, which helped to exacerbate the problem in a number of key ways. They were not strong enough to break the culture of secrecy in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and their approach was too short term.
Farmers and the general public widely regarded the Ministry as a Ministry for farmers, although that charge would have been denied. I understand that it was the job of Ministers to promote that great industry, but sometimes we have to look beyond the short term. Again, the culture of secrecy, which was probably stronger in the Ministry than in any other Department, exacerbated the problem. As Lord Phillips and many other people said, there was little or inadequate co-ordination between the Ministry and the Department of Health.
I remember participating in many debates and being howled down by Conservative Members who said, "Do you want to ruin the beef industry in this country?" The answer was no, but had we acted earlier, we could have saved a greater proportion of our beef industry and perhaps eased the conditions that the farming industry is experiencing today.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I well remember my right hon. Friend's excellent work in those years. In the debates, he, I and many other hon. Members raised the possibility that BSE was transmissible to humans. That was dismissed out of hand by the then Government and we were accused of scaremongering whenever we mentioned it. Does he recall those days? Does he think that the Government's response was appropriate?

Dr. Clark: I remember those days clearly. Right from the word go, the Southwood report said that, although it was only a remote possibility, there was nevertheless a possibility that BSE could be transmissible to human beings. I accept that it was a remote possibility, but Ministers robustly defended the status quo and said that there was little threat to human beings. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and I exchanged words on that matter in several debates.
Crucially, the public were given the impression that it was safe to eat beef. Tragically, we now know that the Southwood report was slightly wrong. The possibility may have been remote in statistical terms, but for those families who have suffered the consequences of BSE, it is a real experience. We all regret every death, and if a death is unnecessary we must ask why it happened.

Mr. David Taylor: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful analysis of the culture of previous Conservative Governments. Deregulation was a strong aspect of that culture, and it made it extremely difficult for public protection measures to be appropriately enforced. Does he share my dismay that Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen are still talking about having a bonfire of public health regulations and enforcement measures?

Dr. Clark: At that time, there was a culture of deregulation. However, when it comes to public health, we should be aiming for better regulations and not necessarily deregulation. We must also bear in mind the fact that, in that period, many public services were being reduced. If my memory serves me right, the state veterinary service was reduced by 43 per cent. in those years. That meant that we did not have the resources in the veterinary or public health services of central Government—closre after closure of veterinary laboratories had taken place—to tackle the problem.
Thus the problem came down to money. Quotes to support that view are available. Professor Southwood said that the permanent secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
expressed the hope … that any recommendations we would make would not lead to an increase in public expenditure".
That is staggering, but it makes my point in one sentence. That is one reason why we got into such difficulties.
Delays were another issue. The Phillips report makes the point that the then Government hushed up for six months the fact that a case of BSE had been confirmed in 1986. That is in the report for everyone to see.
The Southwood report was published in June—Conservatives Members are shaking their heads, but these are the facts—but we had to wait eight months before the report was actually published. Professor Southwood suggests that vital research may have been held up in that period.

Mr. John MacGregor: I would prefer to concentrate my remarks in my speech, but I must correct the right hon. Gentleman's final point. The interim Southwood report was published in June and we acted on it immediately. The full Southwood report was given to Ministers in February 1989 and we published that, along with our reactions and the Government response, within three weeks.

Dr. Clark: There was delay after delay after delay. That is one of the points that I want to make. For example, it took 18 months after a case of BSE was confirmed before the Government made it a otifiable disease. It took 20 months to introduce a compulsory slaughter and compensation scheme and, even then, it was only at 50 per cent. We know—or at least we have our suspicions because I talked to farmers at that time—that farmers who were hard pressed and who were in doubt would take their beast to the market and into the abattoir because they could not afford to lose a £350 animal. The then Government eventually accepted our point of view, but there had been a delay. It took them two and a half years to announce the ban on cattle offal for human consumption, and it took them a further 20 months after making BSE a notifiable disease to pay farmers 100 per cent. compensation. That should have been done earlier.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I remember the right hon. Gentleman making many of these points in the House. The offal ban was first introduced in 1991, but it took another five years for a complete ban to come into force, during which time massive amounts of specified bovine offal and meat, and bonemeal were exported. That fact is now coming home to roost, because there are now cases of BSE in countries overseas.

Dr. Clark: I remember that very well and, over the past two or three days I have been able to read the debates that took place in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The hon. Gentleman made such points then. I hope that I have made my general point that the previous Government were guilty of many delays. We do not know what the cost of them has been.
We issued warnings to the previous Government. In May 1990, we called for a ban on the feeding of cattle offal to pigs and chickens, but that call was not taken up until very much later. We called for the cull of the offspring of BSE-infected cattle but again, that was not implemented until years later. We tried to stop the use of cattle and sheep offal in pet food but, again, it was years later before any action was implemented. In 1990, we called for the institution of a tagging system for cattle, but we had to wait until this Government established a plant

in Workington in 1998 before we got any progress. There was a delay of eight years, in which the Conservative party in government did absolutely nothing.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House which measures recommended by advisers the then Government declined to implement? I played no part at that time, but even if previous Ministers did not get everything right, was it not the case that they systematically took steps to implement in full the advice that they received and, in certain cases, embellished and added to the proposals?

Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman takes a great interest in the subject and is very knowledgeable, and I do not want to disappoint him. However, I shall provide him with an example after I have made my next point. We also called for the widening of the scientific evidence made available to the Government.
Let me respond to the hon. Gentleman by pointing out that one of the recommendations of the Tyrrell committee—a committee of scientists—was that there should be a
Survey of brains of cattle routinely sent for slaughter to monitor incidence of unrecognised infection.
The fact that that was never implemented by the Government of the day, even though their experts recommended that it should have been, is important. We know that the then Government did not implement the recommendation because it might have shown that some infected cattle were getting into the food chain. I understand the seriousness of the issue and the fact that it was a high-risk strategy, but I believe that the consumer had the right to know. There should have been a belt-and-braces approach to these issues, but the previous Government consistently refused to act on that recommendation.

Judy Mallaber: From his experience, will my right hon. Friend confirm that, even after the link between BSE and variant CJD was confirmed, many Tory Back Benchers refused to acknowledge and accept that link? Does he agree that the pressure from some of those ill-informed Conservative Members made it more difficult for Conservative Ministers to accept the link and the risk to human health?

Dr. Clark: There was certainly a strong feeling and culture among Conservative Members that they had to do everything to protect the farming industry. I understand that, but I suggested at the time—and I suggest it again now—that they were not serving their farming friends very well. Indeed, their short-term approach to the problem made life in the long term more difficult for farmers.

Mr. John Burnett: I should disclose that I was a cattle farmer and breeder in the period to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. I hope that he and other Members will acknowledge that, had there been proper labelling of animal feed products and had farmers had real knowledge of the possible dangers, virtually no farmer would ever have fed meat and bonemeal to cattle.

Dr. Clark: I agree absolutely. By the nature of their occupation, farmers have to think long term; otherwise, they have no future.
I want to stress a further important point, which relates to the way in which the Government of the day restricted their scientific advice. Any scientist who was not seen as part of the scientific establishment was excluded. I want to highlight in particular the poignant case of Dr. Harash Narang, the expert in the northern region. He was employed by the Government as the chief scientist for the Public Health Laboratory Service dealing with CJD, the human equivalent of BSE. Dr. Narang had developed a system, through electronic microscopy, to identify CJD in human beings—I concede that it was a post-mortem test—and he believed that he could use the same technique with cattle. At the time, it was taking eight or nine weeks to get the results of any tests, which meant delay with what was done with the animal meanwhile, and the animal was taken out of the human food chain.
I was staggered to find that Dr. Narang, having started to work on these matters in his own time, was sacked by the Conservative Government. To this day I find that incomprehensible. I do not know whether Dr. Narang was a fine scientist—I cannot judge; it was for his peers to judge—but I know that he had collaborated with a Nobel peace prize winner, Dr. Carleton Gajdusek, and had published papers with him. That was his standing. However, he was precluded from helping us to solve the problem. Fortunately, a private benefactor in the form of Ken Bell, a former butcher, came along and allowed the doctor to continue his work.
I am not saying whether Dr. Narang was right or wrong; it is not for me to judge. However, it is possible that his sacking cost lives, because he was permanently excluded from work in this area. At the time, it seemed that there was only a "remote possibility" of a link of transmissible disease from animals to humans. However, Dr. Narang was right and the Government's scientific advisers were wrong. I hope that we have learned—this does not stem from the Phillips report—that when dealing with science of this nature, which is at the bounds of knowledge, members of the scientific establishment do not have the sole solution.
Perhaps I have detained the House for too long, but I feel strongly about the issue. It flavoured my political thinking and I was glad to put right some of the wrongs, as I saw them, in government. I tried to ensure that, if we ever faced such a challenge again, we would have a better equipped group of scientific advisers, a better equipped bureaucratic framework, and Ministers able to think more strategically and more long term. Not enough long-term thinking was done by the previous Government when they were trying to cope with BSE.

Mr. John MacGregor: There are many things that I would like to say about the matter. I shall not be able to deal with them all in a short debate, and those to which I refer will have to be dealt with briefly.
I begin by expressing my deep sympathy for the victims of nvCJD and their relatives. The Phillips report brought out the fact that everyone involved was naturally concerned to take the right decisions, and quickly. Most of us are parents. All of us have the greatest concern for protecting human life and health. In my experience,

everyone involved with BSE pursued all the issues most conscientiously. That is fully recognised in the Phillips report.
I deeply regret that the outcome has been such human tragedy. However, as is recognised in the Phillips report, we were dealing with what turned out to be an unprecedented situation. The report describes BSE as a novel and alarming zoonosis. It was certainly one that was not in the experience of anyone who was trying to identify it at the time. Professor Sir Richard Southwood and other scientists—the best international experts that we could find to advise us on the issue—described us as dealing at the frontiers of science.
The chief veterinary officer once told me—I think that it is in the Phillips report—that 40 new animal diseases a year are identified. We never know which one will be the most difficult. As the Minister will know, there is a disease in the pig industry that is known as PDNS. It probably has a more damaging impact than classical swine fever. It has emerged only in the past two years, and we still do not know what is causing it. After two years, the Minister cannot take action on it because he does not know what action to take. That was the problem that we faced with BSE.
In two instances, I shall be critical of the Phillips report. However, I put on re cord immediately my congratulations to Lord Phillips on what I regard as an exhaustively thorough and balanced analysis. There will always be lessons to be learned from something so major and so difficult to come to grips with. I compliment the Phillips team on the way in which it has drawn the lessons together. I compliment the Government also on the thoroughness of the interim response.
I can speak only for the two years when I was the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which was in the early stages of BSE. Most of the events discussed in the Phillips report—especially the implementation of decisions that we took—came after my time. I did not follow events quite s o closely thereafter, and it would not be right for me to comment on them.
I have already referred to uncertainty. I was always conscious, and certainly at the early stages—I shall make a direct response to the criticisms of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)—that we were taking decisions without being entirely sure of the scientific assessment s underlying them. When I took the initial decisions about the banning of meat and bonemeal, I was conscious that we were only 80 per cent. sure that it was a cause of BSE There was always the risk of being completely wrong and being challenged on judicial review or in the courts by the industry or anyone else for taking actions that were r of based on any proper scientific assessment.
My first answer to the right hon. Member for South Shields on the meat and bonemeal ban is that I received the final paper from the chief veterinary officer, in which he analysed what he thought was the cause of BSE— namely, meat and bonemeal—only in May 1988. That was when I had the evidence on which to act. Within three weeks, or less, I had 'tanned it. That was a quick response.
As for the slaughter and compensation proposal, I agree with the criticism in the report that there was delay. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should have been in contact with the Department of Health earlier about that proposal. However, the chief medical officer
 

took the view that that Department, once consulted, did not have the necessary expertise to consider the proposal. Therefore, the Southwood committee was set up. Within days of receiving the interim Southwood report about the slaughter and compensation scheme, I went to the Treasury. Within a week, I secured Treasury agreement. An announcement was made almost immediately thereafter. That was a rapid response
The right hon. Member for South Shields is completely wrong about the final Southwood report. I received that report in early February, and published it as quickly as I could. I had been to Cabinet and obtained the Government's decisions on it as well. I not only published the report immediately, but announced the Government's actions. In each instance the right hon. Gentleman is wrong.

Dr. David Clark: How does the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House the comments of Professor Southwood, when he says:
We recommended that such an experiment"—
transmission from cow to calf—
be started almost as soon as we met, but it did not get under way until the report was published 9 months later."—[Official Report, 21 May 1990; Vol. 173, c. 78.]

Mr. MacGregor: That is not a reference to the interim report, because we came out with all of that early on. I cannot remember the position on the particular issues that the right hon. Gentleman is raising, but I was anxious throughout to act immediately on the Southwood recommendations, and I did so.
Uncertainty is an important issue.

Mr. Ainger: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacGregor: No. If I give way a great deal, I shall go on for too long. There are still a number of issues within the report with which I want to deal.
Paragraph 1151 of the Phillips report states:
When our Inquiry began, most members of the public remained under the impression that BSE was scraple in cattle and that the reason why cattle food had become infectious was that renderers had altered their methods of production to the detriment of safety standards.
Most of us in the House took that view; it was certainly my view. Therefore paragraph 166 in the Phillips report surprised me. It states:
The epidemic of BSE may have started with a single diseased cow. Why should that cow have developed BSE? It is possible that the disease developed spontaneously as a consequence of a genetic mutation.
The report states that that probably occurred in the early 1970s. It continues:
There are other possibilities. No one will ever know.
I took the received view—the best view of everyone at the time—that the cause was the change in the rendering of meat and bonemeal in the early 1980s and that sheep scrapie was coming through the process. That turned out to be partly right, as meat and bonemeal were the cause of the spread. However, according to Phillips, the rendering had nothing to do with it. I remember that the right hon. Member for South Shields raised that process with me frequently, but in fact rendering turned out to be a false cause.
I was surprised even more by the fact that scrapie had nothing to do with the cause. That is significant, as all the received scientific assessment at the time suggested that BSE came from scrapie, which led to the view that the risk to human health was remote. The reason for that was simple: scrapie had been around for 200 years, and had not had any consequences for human health.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall do so just once.

Mr. Clarke: I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not worry too much about time, because we respect his courage in coming to the House and applying himself to the matter.
May I briefly put to him a comment in the Phillips report and invite his response? The report states:
Mr Andrews … should have raised with Mr MacGregor the need to have an answer to this question.
That is, the question why action should be taken on baby food and not other food. The report continues:
Mr. MacGregor himself should have seen that the question … was pursued.
Would the right hon. Gentleman care to respond to that criticism?

Mr. MacGregor: If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall respond to both criticisms at the right place in my speech.
I shall finish my point about uncertainty, which is terribly important. The scrapie analysis led to the scientific assessment, to which nearly everyone subscribed at the time, that the risk to human health was, as the Southwood report states, "most unlikely and remote". However, Southwood and others emphasised that if those conclusions were wrong, the consequences would be extremely serious. I never sought to disguise that. I frequently made that point wherever I went, as well as the point about the remoteness of the risk and the relationship to scrapie.
It is not only a question of scientists getting some things right and some things wrong in their early assessment. Indeed, the Phillips report does not criticise them at all for that. The Phillips report itself may be wrong about the cause; it admits that it simply does not know. I was surprised by the certainty with which it discussed the mutation theory—it may be wrong. It is essential that we continue to assess the causes, which is why the Government are right to ask Professor Horn to review the origins of BSE. That is one of the most important actions that they can take because, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) said, the ramifications may go wider than BSE itself.

Mr. Nick Brown: indicated assent.

Mr. MacGregor: I note that the Minister is nodding.
That possibility demonstrates the difficulties of grappling with the issue at the time.

Judy Mallaber: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacGregor: No, I will not.
I want to concentrate on the lessons. First, I must briefly address criticisms of individuals, the vast majority of which were addressed to civil servants, who do not have the opportunity to reply. In my experience, they were extremely dedicated in dealing, in many cases, with extraordinarily difficult issues on top of an already heavy work load. Of course, mistakes were made. However, far more often, Phillips concludes that the right and, critically, key decisions were, in most cases, taken speedily in frequently difficult circumstances, and in the context of available knowledge. Indeed, there are many commendations to that effect in the report.
To deal with the criticisms made by the right hon. Member for South Shields, Phillips makes it clear that there were no cover-ups or deceptions. The right hon. Gentleman's point about MAFF being close to the farming industry is rejected absolutely in the report. The accusation that the 50 per cent. compensation led to an increase in the number of people trying to evade controls is also rejected. All of those accusations were analysed carefully in the report, and were rejected.
One reason—I put this criticism mildly—why there has been a focus on individuals is that individual criticisms were listed in an appendix, on which there was a media focus. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was right and rather kind in his original statement to the House, when he indicated that there was not a similar appendix drawing out all the commendations and praiseworthy comments in the report about individuals. If that had been done, the report might have been rather more balanced.
I obviously do not want to make comments about too many civil servants, but my own permanent secretary, Sir Derek Andrews, was meticulous and conscientious in dealing with the matter. I felt particularly for the chief veterinary officer, Keith Meldrum, and Dr. Pickles from the Department of Health, who received individual criticisms. However, if one considers the overall balance of the report, they come out extremely well. I should especially like to talk about Keith Meldrum, whom the report describes as
a particularly dedicated and hard-working civil servant".
I want to put that on the record, as it is only fair to that individual.

Judy Mallaber: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I have a lot to say.
I also want to emphasise that the three vital measures that we took during my time at MAFF were warmly praised in the Phillips report; it is important that that be understood. First, Mr. Wilesmith, who undertook the initial analysis of the disease, was given great praise for his speedy identification of meat and bonemeal as a cause of the spread of the disease. There was wide praise for the fact that we banned meat and bonemeal very soon after—I believe that the report refers to our swift and appropriate response—which directly contradicts what the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston said. As the report makes clear, that action reduced the rate of infection by 80 per cent. overnight.
Equally, the slaughter and compensation scheme and the specified bovine offal ban were described as vital measures for the protection of human health. Indeed, to respond to the point of the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston, the report describes one of those measures as far-seeing and of great importance.
Having set out that context, I shall deal briefly with the two individual criticisms of me. The first—to which I think the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston was referring—was that, after the final Southwood report, I did not ask for a review of the report's suggestion, namely, that if SBO materials were not to be used in baby food, why not ban their use in all food? But that is precisely what I did. It is on record that that was one of the first questions that I asked internally in the Ministry. As I considered the issue of baby food, that question was increasingly on my mind, and that of many people. That matter was raised in the Ministry.
The proof of that is the action I took on the Southwood report to ban SBOs in all food. I acted in response to my first question, so the Phillips report's criticism of me is rather strange. The reason that criticism is in the report—which is important for the context of future inquiries—is that many of us who went to the public hearings for the Phillips report, and had questions put to us by the report's counsel, frequently had to point out that not everything that takes place in Departments is written down. We had the strong impression that a paper trail alone was being pursued and that discussions that were not recorded in detail were thought not to have taken place.
In fact, I did ask the question about SBOs, which is why I came to my decision, and why I am surprised by the criticism in the report. There is therefore a problem in relation to the inquiries undertaken by the Phillips team. The report rightly refers to the fact that the civil service is a Rolls-Royce machine, but criticises it for taking too long to reach conclusions on issues and on its tendency to draft and redraft guidelines. That is a fair criticism. Of course, if people are asked why they did not do something 10 years after the event because no record exists that they asked a certain question, or if they are asked why a matter was not raised at a ministerial meeting because the minutes of that meeting did not refer to it, that will lead to a situation in which everything will be written down and ultra-caution will be practised to protect the civil servants.
I know for a fact—and I am sure that the Minister would agree—that in many of our meetings, the private secretary, rushed off his or her feet, takes a quick note of the conclusions and that is it. Somehow or other, the Phillips inquiry gained the impression that, unless it was all written down, something never happened. There is a risk of banking up double safety mechanisms in the civil service, which could lead to even greater delays.
The report makes another criticism of me, which I must read out briefly. With reference to the SBO ban, it states:
Mr MacGregor is bo he commended for introducing a ban which was to prove such a vital element in guarding against the risk that BSE posed to humans. However, he should not have agreed to presentation which played down the importance of the ban as a protection for human health.
That is the only other criticism, which suggests that I should have added another sentence or two to the parliamentary answer that announced the SBO ban. I have wrestled with the matter, which is one of judgment. At


the time, I was anxious about exceeding Professor Southwood's recommendations. I was worried that the next day's headlines would say "Minister and advisers disagree", when I wanted them to refer instead to the action that we were taking as an ultra-safe precaution for human health. Indeed, Professor Southwood described the precaution as being belt and braces in the extreme. In order to avoid the wrong interpretation and to show that the measure had developed from the Southwood report, I added some important additional points. They are itemised in the Phillips report, so I shall not repeat them now. That was my focus, but I am criticised for not adding a sentence saying that risk still remained to human health.
The answer to that criticism is twofold. First, there had been widespread debate in the media about the issue in the weeks leading up to my decision. The way in which it was received by the press shows that the action that I was taking in the background was fully understood. Secondly, I was assured by all the scientists that the action that I was taking was not scientifically necessary. I therefore made the point that if there was a risk and we turned out to be wrong, I would already have taken the action to deal with it. That is the way in which I presented the matter, and I leave that to the House to consider. I thought that I had presented it reasonably well.

Mr. Boswell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the flavour of those two points justifies sears that the practice of defensive medicine might be growing? Just as it might be difficult to pursue specialties in medicine because of the risk of being sued thereafter, Ministers might be inhibited, if we persist in the constant it habit of having to find an audit trail, in making decisions, is because they must act in an over-defensive way in order to justify them subsequently.

Mr. MacGregor: I shall return to that interesting point during my consideration of the report's lessons. I apologise to the House for taking so long to make my speech, but as I was criticised in the report, I think it reasonable for me to respond, even if very briefly.
I am in broad agreement with the Phillips report's conclusions on the areas about which I have relevant knowledge, and with those in the Government's response.

Judy Mallaber: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacGregor: I am sorry; I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I continue.
I want to concentrate on some particular lessons, having made the point that I am broadly in agreement with them. I entirely agree about openness. I always tried to release information and reports as quickly as I could, especially with regard to communication of risk I reject the idea that I knowingly suppressed any information, and I am sure that those of my right hon. friends who have had similar responsibilities will say exactly the same.

Mr. Ainger: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacGregor: I want to make progress, as I know that so many hon. Members want to speak.
I say to the Minister that Government must not let the desire for wider consultation or the need for further review delay action if they conclude that a particular

proposal or policy decision must be implemented quickly. If one consults widely, there is a risk that that may happen. I had to take two or three of my decisions very quickly.
The question of openness and sedation is difficult—the Minister is also likely to find it problematic—because of the media reaction. We were anxious to convey the precise scientific views that were taken about the risk. However, we always had to be careful about misleading headlines, so conveying such views was always a difficult matter of presentation. My other criticism of the report is that it does not give attention to the response and attitude of the media. That was hardly mentioned, but a whole chapter on it would have been helpful. I suspect that the Government's response does not deal with the importance of the media either. It contains a brief reference to training civil servants in respect of dealing with the media, but the matter is wider than that.
Although openness is entirely right, it will not solve all the problems when some sections of the media are interested merely in a sensational headline or a good scare story. I suspect that even the Food Standards Agency and its director will find that that is the case from time to time. I have always felt that one of the key qualifications for the director, apart from being a scientist, is skill in dealing with the media.
I wholly support the need for a much more informed public debate on risk assessment and management. I have often tried to get such debate going, not only as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but as Secretary of State for Transport. Initiating such debate is not, however, an easy thing to do. Such matters are rather boring and an accident or food scare is much more interesting than proper risk assessment. I fully support every effort to get proper risk assessment and management more into the public debate.
I strongly support the codification of good practice in respect of the scientific committees. The Neill committee on standards in public life, of which I am a member, has been codifying good practice in public life for the past few years. The lessons of the past and up-to-date thinking mean that codification is worth while.
I have a couple of points that relate to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). It is important sometimes to pay our advisers, who have a big work load, as is mentioned in the report. There is also a risk that they will be unwilling to serve if every piece of advice that they give is subjected to the sort of treatment given by the Phillips report. I suspect that some members of the Southwood committee feel aggrieved at the way in which their actions have been analysed. In future, advisers might need reassurance on indemnity. As my hon. Friend suggested, that is important in this age of blame culture and ambulance chasing.
The report refers also to training scientists in the use of plain language, which is important, but above all, media training is highly desirable. I often felt that the precision to which scientists are used can be at odds with some journalists' desire to get a good headline.
I turn finally to two other important matters. On Government action and legislation, I was surprised at how little reference was made to judicial review in the main body of the report. It was mentioned once or twice, but Ministers at the time were conscious of its dangers. I once worked in a Department that was subjected to judicial


review in respect of a particular case, so I know about all the risks of legal action that would have arisen if we had taken decisions that were not properly based.
There is a very interesting question about the matter that has not been fully explored. Paragraph 1329 of the report states that powers
should not be restricted merely because it cannot be established as a reasonable probability, as opposed to a mere possibility … that the disease is transmissible.
That is where judicial review comes in and, from about paragraph 1303 onwards, the report contains an interesting analysis in that regard, although I shall not bore the House by reading it out. The message that I took was that it is always important to get the balance right. One has to continue to give the opportunity for outside interests to challenge through judicial review a Minister's action and the basis for it. On the other hand, if one is to proceed as Phillips recommends when the issue at stake and the scientific evidence are very unclear, the implications of judicial review must be thought through. That has not yet been done properly, so I ask the Minister to think a bit more about that issue.
I could say so much more, but I should like finally to deal with tests. We were greatly handicapped in the early years by the lack of a reliable test. We had no test to detect animal protein in compound feed, let alone ruminant protein. That was extremely difficult in respect of the bonemeal ban. I would have loved to have a test, and the enzyme linked immuno sorbent assay—or ELISA—test was eventually developed. Even more important, however, was the detection of BSE. Decisions taken by the European Union now depend greatly on having a reliable test for BSE. My understanding is that there are still defects in the existing post mortem tests, in terms both of their complete reliability and of the speed with which they can be carried out. We must ask in how much better a position we would be if a test in live animals could be developed. Indeed, the Government make that point on page 40 of their response. I attach enormous importance to the development of a reliable test, as it would make it so much easier to deal with the disease. I am glad that the Government are putting so much effort into that.
I apologise for having spoken so long. My conclusion is that we did seek the best scientific advice that we could and we always acted on it. We never did less and occasionally did more. We also took what Phillips described as far-sighted measures. However, BSE was an unprecedented phenomenon from which lessons are bound to have been learned. The Phillips report gives the right framework and, in my view, the Government are right to follow it up rigorously.

Dr. Gavin Strang: The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) will understand if I do not comment in detail on what he said because many other hon. Members wish to speak.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), my interest in BSE developed when I was the Opposition agriculture spokesman, a post which I held until the 1997 election. As long as I live, I will remember the day when British Ministers came to the

House of Commons to announce the likely link between BSE and CJD. It is a measure of how serious the issue was that, in the morning, the Government sent the chief medical officer, the permanent secretary at the Agriculture Ministry, and the Cabinet Secretary to brief me and my right hon. Friend Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who was then the shadow health spokesman, on the seriousness of the statement that the Government were to make that afternoon.
A great deal has happened since that day, and I congratulate the Government on setting up the Phillips inquiry. There is no doubt that that inquiry was necessary and there is a great deal to be learned from this episode in British history. I should like to start by quoting from the report:
At the heart of the BSE story are questions of how to handle hazard—a known hazard to cattle and an unknown hazard to humans. The government took measures to address both hazards. They were sensible mea cures, but they were not always timely nor adequately implemented and enforced.
That key conclusion of the Phillips committee explains why disease in cattle was allowed to develop on such a massive scale.
We know the proportions of the BSE crisis. The disease was first recognised in November 1986, and since then we have had nearly 180,000 cases of BSE on more than 35,000 farms in Great Britain. Since the statement by the then Government in March 1996, measures have been taken which have cost the British taxpayer £4 billion.
We can now quantify the cost of BSE in terms of the animal population, but we are not in a position to judge how big a tragedy it will be for the human population. There have been a number of articles in The Lancet and the British Medical Journal during the past year on new variant CJD. There have been 94 probable or definite cases to date, of which, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said, 86 have died. That is not a large number, certainly not compared with the 17,000 cases of AIDS, but the numbers are rising and no one can say how many cases will develop in the years that lie ahead.
The impact of BSE has not been confined to the UK. The EU budget now faces serious problems because of the collapse in the beef price, and two German Ministers were forced to resign only recently on the issue.
What went wrong? I want to specify four failings in particular. First, there was delay. Measures to protect human and animal health were not put in place as quickly as they should have been. BSE was first identified in November 1986, but animals showing symptoms of the disease were still allowed to go into human food until August 1988.
When it was realised that cattle and sheep should not eat cattle and sheep, the Government gave the industry five weeks' grace to clear their stocks of feed, and we know that many in the industry took much longer than that so that stocks were used long after the ban came into force.
It was not until November 1989 that the brain and spinal cord of all cattle were banned from human food in England and Wales, and January 1990 in Scotland. The mechanical recovery of meat, which can result in spinal cord entering human food, was not banned until 1995.
Secondly, there was under-enforcement. Measures to protect human and animal health were appallingly badly enforced in the feedmills and slaughterhouses. Our cattle


were still eating contaminated feed many years after it was banned in 1988, and BSE has been confirmed in an animal born as late as 1996. More than 42,000 cases of BSE have been confirmed in cattle born after the feed ban. With regard to human food, nearly half the slaughterhouses visited in September 1995 were found to be in breach of BSE controls designed to keep infected offal out of our food—five years after the offal ban was put in place.
Thirdly, there were failures of con communication. Far too often in the BSE story, Departments failed to talk to one another. That is borne out by the Phillips report. Lack of communication between MAFF and the Department of Health resulted, as the right hon. Member for South Norfolk confirmed to his credit in the delay in introducing the slaughter and compensation policy and in addressing the risk posed by bovine products in human medicines.
The experts at the neuropathogehesis unit, based in Edinburgh, could have told the Government years before that it was possible that a small amount of infective material could transmit the disease.
Fourthly, the public were given the false impression that BSE posed no risk. So keen were the Government to try to prevent food scares that the public were not properly informed of the risks presented by BSE. Lord Phillips says:
officials and Ministers followed an approach whose object was sedation".
When the news broke in March 1996 about the link with variant CJD, therefore,
the public felt they had been betrayed".
There was then a massive crisis in public confidence, not only in the safety of beef but in the trustworthiness of official advice, a point which my right hon. Friend made recently. We are still suffering from that and it will take a long time to regain the British people's confidence in ministerial statements.
Disastrously, people in the food industry were listening to the Government's campaign of reassurance. The BSE report concludes that the lack of diligence in keeping our food safe was attributable in part to the Government's efforts to ensure that news about BSE did not give rise to public concern.
I want to touch on the role of scientists. I was an animal scientist myself before I entered the House. The BSE inquiry report makes many valuable points. In particular, Lord Phillips points out:
BSE did not emerge at a propitious time so far as research was concerned. In 1985 Ministers had accepted a recommendation from the Priorities Board for Research and Development in Agriculture and Food that expenditure on research into animal diseases was disproportionate and should be reduced by 20 per cent. Implementation of this policy was resulting in staffing cuts at research establishments.
One area that is not expanded on in the report is the ability of scientists to publish their findings. The Minister may be aware that there are scientists who worked on behalf of the Government on BSE matters who are quite clear that they were prevented from making their findings public. Dr. Valerie Ellis, assistant general secretary of the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists, the trade union representing many Government scientists, states:
Anecdotally, Members of the CVLA"—

the central veterinary laboratory agency—
did raise the issue of concern over transmission of BSE between species and were told 'not to be daft'.
One example put to the BSE inquiry of where publication was prevented was a paper on the possibility of a link between BSE and feline spongiform encephalopathy. That is an area that needs to be considered further, which I hope will happen in the fullness of time and before the full report is published.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement today that he has appointed a distinguished scientist to consider the science of BSE. As was pointed out by the right hon. Member for South Norfolk, we do not know for sure how BSE first developed, and we still have a lot to learn about it.
I welcome the fact that the Government moved so quickly to set up the independent Food Standards Agency and my right hon. Friend's important restatement of the fact that all the advice and scientific information in this area is now in the public domain. There is no question but that that is a quantum change. I also welcome the new care arrangements for new variant CJD patients and the proposed improvements in the machinery of government.
What will happen if a new disease appears in future? What key lessons have been learned from the BSE crisis? The first is that we should apply the precautionary principle. When human health is involved, it is always wise in the first instance to err on the side of caution, or—dare I say it?—perhaps on the side of overkill. Secondly, we should identify all possible routes of transmission to other animals and humans, and impose all measures necessary to reduce the risk of transmission to as low a level as possible. We should ensure that all measures to protect human and animal health are properly enforced. That is vital, and arguably the most important lesson to learn from the crisis. All of us, including Conservative Members, know that those measures had not been effectively enforced for years.

Judy Mallaber: From my right hon. Friend's experience, would he agree that some of these lessons might not have been learned if the inquiry had not been established? Will he speculate on whether, if the Conservatives had unfortunately got into government at the last election, they would have set up such an inquiry? I would like to ask the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) that question, as he made complimentary remarks about many aspects of the report, although he included some caveats. Does my right hon. Friend think that the inquiry and report would have happened if there had not been a change of Government? What would have been the outcome of not holding the Phillips inquiry?

Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. We would almost certainly not have had this report: the issue would certainly not have been examined with such thoroughness. When the Opposition reply to the debate, it would be helpful if they made it clear that, in the unlikely event of a Conservative Government coming to power after the next election, they would carry forward this work and implement all the measures that my right hon. Friend has pledged to put in place.
The other lesson to learn from this debacle is that we should be open, even when the information available is inconclusive. The public can cope with the truth, and they


must be trusted with the truth. What they cannot cope with is the realisation that they are not being told the whole truth.
There were failings in the handling of the BSE crisis. The harsh reality is that animals and, almost certainly, some people who should have been protected from BSE have been exposed to it. We are seeing the end of the disease in cattle, but we still have no idea of the scale of the human disaster resulting from BSE. We can only hope that the number of new cases of variant CJD in humans will begin to fall.

Mr. Colin Breed: I agree with many of the points made by Labour Members, and I understand the justification offered by the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). I extend the sympathies of Liberal Democrat Members to all who have been tragically affected by BSE. I do not want to dwell on the mistakes of the past, because I would much rather examine ways of working together to ensure that a national tragedy such as BSE is never allowed to happen again. With hindsight, many people who have examined this issue over a long period and many of the public now accept that there were difficulties, but they want leadership from the Government to ensure that the changes required do take place.
The Government have produced their interim response to the inquiry, which I welcome. I acknowledge the work of Lord Phillips and his team in producing such a wide-ranging, far-reaching and exhaustive report. I hope that we shall return to it in the future, because its recommendations extend far beyond the BSE crisis.
The report has not been received without criticism, however, and interestingly the Government chose to make an initial response prior to this debate, which in turn has shifted the emphasis and diminished the opportunity to discuss the merits and demerits of the report. I, and perhaps other hon. Members, have been contacted by some of those involved in the inquiry who have voiced a number of concerns, two of which deserve a mention.
First, there is concern that the inquiry went about verifying certain prejudged conclusions rather than seeking answers from scratch. That is a serious allegation, but I am minded to discount it, given the meticulous attention to fairness that the language of the report denotes, and the fact that it is broadly accepted by both sides of the House.
The second charge gives greater cause for concern, and has been touched on by other hon. Members. The report, without warning, in effect altered the status of civil servants in such a way that personal responsibility was accorded to civil servants who had previously been afforded the privilege of being covered by ministerial responsibility. That the actions of civil servants were scrutinised seems right in the circumstances, but given the very public nature of the inquiry's scrutiny, more attention should have been paid to protecting some individuals, especially those who faced extremely serious allegations that were published on the internet but later not upheld. Although I welcome the fact that the Phillips inquiry left no stone unturned, we must always be mindful of protecting our public servants from unjustified media or public attention.
The key to the future is the way in which the Government have responded to the report's findings. I want to examine what I believe are the three crucial areas in need of improvement that were highlighted by the report: first, the way the Government deal with risk; secondly, the need for Governments to operate more openly both between Departments and in their interaction with the public; and, thirdly, the way the Government operate internally in their practices and protocol.
The main element of the Government's response to the BSE inquiry is the establishment of the Food Standards Agency: a body that we have supported and which we want to succeed. 0n the face of it, the Food Standards Agency should be able to address the immediate problems raised by the Phillips inquiry. It is independent, so it should be able to command greater credibility in an age of scepticism; it conducts its business in public; and it puts all its research contracts out to tender to attract the best scientific minds available to inform it.
The Food Standards Agency cannot be the solution to all the problems highlighted by the inquiry, however. Give or take a few other smaller measures, the general impression is that the Government think they have done enough, but questions remain, the most important of which is whether the FSA is getting it right. Is it properly perceived as independent of Government, or would it be better if it reported direct to a Committee of the House rather than to a Government Department? Is it considering all the best scientific opinion? Perhaps more importantly, are its pronouncements heard and trusted by the general public?
To my mind, we ire at an early stage and we cannot answer those questions is for certain. The FSA is very young and its mettle is being tested by the new European BSE situation. Even if we accept that the FSA is doing all it was intended to do, the job, as laid out by Phillips, is by no means done. First, much more was brought out by the report. For example, are the Government making adequate contingency plans while awaiting the advice of their expert advisers—now the FSA? That fundamental question must be addressed, and I shall return to it later.
A yet more serious problem is raised by the "FSA solves all" approach. The findings of the BSE report have implications for the Government which range far beyond just food safety. The report specifically mentions medicines, but as yet the Government have done little to address that issue. More importantly, its comments on the treatment of risk she should have caused the Government to re-examine their practices across all policy areas. On health, what is the situation in respect of single-use instruments? What about sterilisation procedures and blood transfusions throughout the United Kingdom? What about the labelling of medication?
A clear issue on which Lord Phillip's findings should have informed policy is the Government's treatment of the risks associated with mobile phones and telecommunications base stations. That issue will never be addressed by the FSA, but it leads me clearly to the first of my three concerns: risk.
How to treat risks to the public is a dilemma for any Government. It was clearly a dilemma for the previous Conservative Administration, and it remains a dilemma for this Government. There is no point in causing unnecessary scares, but the Government have a


fundamental role in protecting public health. That will often require action even before positive proof is available.
Since the period that Lord Philips investigated, a number of risks have been identified by many individuals and groups. Genetically modified foods and the MMR vaccine have been mentioned. I am pleased to note the presence of the Minister for Public Health, who will doubtless comment on that. The most recent risk—the new outbreak of BSE on the continent—has been dealt with by the Food Standards Agency, rather well in my view. It might well be posited, however, that the lack of public panic had more to do with the fact that the media did not have enough sensational revelations from journalists with which to plaster their pages than—necessarily—with the fact that the FSA's openness has reassured the public. There has, however, been no cover-up, deliberate or otherwise, which is commendable.
Another risk that has come to the fore recently—I have already mentioned this—is posed by mobile telephones. In this respect, the situation is less clear. It is plain that some lessons from Phillips have been learned: the Government admitted that they did not know what the risks were, and recruited experts to investigate. When the experts concluded that they, too did not know what the risks were, the Government published the report and put the science behind it in the public domain by publishing a leaflet.
That was very commendable. So far, so good. The Government congratulate themselves on that good work—but the most important aspect highlighted by the BSE report is the need to act even when the risk is only potential. We are talking about the so-called precautionary principle.
Although the Stewart report recommended the taking of precautions in relation to mobile telephone base station sites many months ago, we still hear that case upon case of applications for base stations near schools, and in dense residential areas, are accepted every day. The public are naturally very concerned, and we are seeing a growing number of petitions and demonstrations. What is the point of all this communication of risk, if precautions are not being taken until the risk has been spread?

Mr. William Thompson: According to the hon. Gentleman's argument, should not mobile phones be banned outright? The danger is likely to lie not in the mast but in the phone itself.

Mr. Breed: I agree. I think that the science should be in the public domain, and that we should adopt the precautionary principle—especially when it involves the recommendations of an independent report, which in this case was instigated by the Government.
I realise that the Minister may not wish to comment on those specific points, but I feel that comments on the broader issues relating to the handling of risk are important, and they arise from the Phillips report.
Closer, perhaps, to the hearts of many who take part in agriculture debates is the classical swine fever outbreak, which is fresh in many of our memories. It raises another aspect of the Government's attitude to risk. In their interim response, the Government responded to Lord Phillips's view that insufficient resources were available for research and veterinary services when the problem of

BSE arose. They have concluded, however, that the current emergency funds are sufficient. Why, then, was I contacted during the swine fever crisis—I think other Members were as well—by so many farmers who were worried about unreasonable delays in getting test results back, apparently because Government scientists were overwhelmed with work?
Have we really done enough to cover such emergencies? That is a question that the Government must answer. The rundown in Government research and testing facilities over many years may well have precipitated some of the problems revealed by the Phillips report. Are those facilities now being given the resources that they require?
There is another crucial question. Has enough been done to tackle concerns about openness and communication within Government, and between various Government Departments and offices? A response was published before today's debate, on the basis of which I think we should ask a few more questions.
I have registered my concerns about excessive reliance on the Food Standards Agency to deliver all the changes required by Phillips. More noticeable by its absence from the Government's interim response, however, is any reference to a serious look at the need to improve intragovernmental communication and openness, and to tackle the cultural problems identified in the report.
We are told in the Government's response that they have established a number of concordats between various Departments and offices to enshrine the principles of better communication; but where precisely is the communication link that was so sorely missing during the period covered by the report—the link between the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? I am not at all convinced that enough communication channels exist as yet. Perhaps some are in the process of being set up—the Minister may be able to enlighten us a little later—but it sometimes seems that rather than redressing the lack of communication between those two Departments, the FSA has been passed the buck. It will not do the job; it must be done by Government Departments acting together.
I welcome some measures announced in the interim response. A cross-departmental committee on zoonoses has been set up, and the secretariat of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee now involves members of both Departments. Those are positive developments—but what of the other lesson that must be learned if the report is to make a real difference? I refer to the fact that, too often, important documents sat on desks rather than being attended to with the urgency that is due to them.
All too often, it was left to those outside Government to identify the areas in which discussion was lacking. The report tells us that my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) was instrumental in raising the problem of head-splitting. I think we know what that means: I suspect that my hon. Friend was talking in animal terms. The issue had been the subject of an internal memo that had apparently been ignored.
Research commissioned by Pedigree Foods originally identified what should be classed as specified bovine offals. Pedigree Foods took the initiative to answer questions raised by the Government's own inquiries. The report specifically notes, moreover, that the measures to


ensure careful implementation of the specified bovine offals policy was driven not by Government but by the media, stating:
The media played a valuable role … which had a beneficial influence on Government policy".
It is rather nice to be able to praise the media, at least in this instance.
The Government clearly do not talk among themselves enough. I, for one, feel sceptical about the possibility that more concordats and rules will substantially change the culture in Whitehall that has dominated us for so many years. In one circumstance after another, I still find examples of exactly the culture that the BSE report urges against, that of secrecy and closeness—be it refusing to answer straightforward questions, or refusing to meet people informally rather than undertaking formal and expensive studies and consultation. Consultations are a safe way of dealing with issues as far as the Government are concerned, but in many cases more openness would limit the need for such cumbersome exercises.
That brings me to the last issue I want to raise: the operation of government. The BSE inquiry raised many examples of bureaucracy that would be laughable if their consequences had not been so tragic. One example is the urgent note to abattoirs—a key document—explaining the importance of enforcing regulations, which took more than a year to draft and redraft. Examples of delay—Labour Members have made clear the existence of such examples—have been a significant factor in this whole affair. We need to know that such bureaucratic idiocy has ceased, and that action will be taken much more promptly.
The inquiry made it clear that the Government should not use openness and consultation as an excuse for dither and delay: they must be ready to act, and to act quickly, when there is any possible risk. Yet even in the Government's response, we see further evidence of the operational logjamming in Whitehall. One of the inquiry's crucial findings was that the Government did not have sufficient understanding of their own operation to determine who should be informed of, and who should act on, the new risks posed by BSE. The report recommends that
lead responsibility should be clearly established for co-ordinating scientific response to a new disease or new outbreak of disease".
I believe that the Government needed to leap into action on this matter, but what was their response? They used the words "aspirational terms". The Government are looking into assessing who should be consulted and who has lead responsibility.
Only recently, the rural White Paper gave a clear example of how action can be put to one side and preference given to constant drafting and redrafting. While t's were being crossed and i's dotted, the countryside continued to decline. The Government must learn these lessons, put them into action, and monitor their own performance.
In short, we cannot say that the Phillips report is done and dusted. Its recommendations and suggestions need to be regularly referred to, and perhaps a formal annual review should be established to ensure that the recommendations accepted by the Government have been transferred into Government performance. It is all too easy to slip back into the old way of doing things. We

must guard against that, and ensure that the sea changes recommended by the report are implemented, maintained and, where necessary, reinforced. That is the most important message of this sorry saga.
It is tempting to revisit the past regularly to remind ourselves of the horrors of what went on, but we have to look forward. We must do so with confidence that the report's recommendations will truly transform the performance of government.
It is true that the Food Standards Agency has been a step forward, and it is currently cutting its teeth on the very complex issues of European BSE. However, the Government need to learn more of the lessons from the report—about their internal workings, about the need for communication and openness across the board, and about the need for action, even in uncertainty.
For example, the European BSE issue raises certain questions. Are contingency plans being made in case the FSA urges a ban? Have the industry and the scientists, including those outside the existing SEAC and FSA structures, been consulted, and has contact with them been maintained? Who will be in charge of taking forward any policy? Is the Department of Trade and Industry on standby? Are MAFF and the Department of Health in agreement with whatever contingency plans have been drawn up?
Beyond that, what more is planned? Are the Government working on establishing who is responsible now, before their consultation on this interim response comes in? Is contingency planning on the basis of the outcome of the Krebs trials under way?
It is undeniable that BSE was a national tragedy. The Government are leaning the lessons, and that is vital. This is not a party political issue, because it is about government and how it works, whichever party is in office and whatever hazards come to light during a Government's time in office.
The BSE inquiry was thorough—I think that all hon. Members agree on that. The Government must now be as thorough in their response, both in the immediate time frame, and in the future.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 15-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches from 4.30 pm until 6.30 pm?

Mr. Tom Clarke: I think that the debate has been extremely helpful. I want to thank the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) for his reply to me, and I will of course study his response.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food showed again today superb competence and great sensitivity in dealing with what is an extremely serious subject. It is one of the most serious matters that I have been involved with since I came to the House. The House will know that my interest in the matter in my constituency of Coatbridge and Chryston arose as a result of the very tragic case of Donna Maria McGivern. She was a teenager who died after an illness of two and half years, in circumstances that we can only imagine.
My aim today—I hope that I say this with a sense of humility—is to encourage the House to think about how families coped with the sadness that they felt as they met the hour-by-hour challenges that arose in a situation that none of them could have predicted. The families have been helped very considerably by the Irwin Mitchell firm of solicitors, and in particular by Mr. David Body. It is gratifying to note that many of the families' criticisms and proposals have been taken on board in the Phillips report and in the Government's interim response to it.
At the close of the families' evidence in phase 1 of the inquiry, Lord Phillips told them:
This is very much your inquiry. The pressure that led to it has largely come from you. You are entitled to a thorough inquiry, and we are doing our best to make sure that this inquiry is as thorough as it could possibly be.
The House is seeking to respond to that approach today.
The questions for us are, "What really did happen? Can we really get to the root of these dreadful problems? In the light of the clear evidence of incompetence, what do we do to respond to the needs of the se who have been so deeply affected?" My constituents seek the truth: they want neither a witch hunt nor a white wash. They will have been helped by our consideration of the Phillips report today.
I initially raised some of the issues under discussion today in a debate in December 1999 I subsequently led a delegation to meet my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health, and I thank her for the interest that she showed even at that early stage in the development of the Government's response.
I want also to put on record my thanks to the Government for their speedy response when it came to compensation. They also acted speedily to consider a strategy for a care package when similar sad events arise, and to ensure the co-ordination that they clearly regard as necessary, both within and between Government Departments, and with the various outside agencies involved. Those bodies include the surveillance units, and it is the unit in Edinburgh that is charged with the responsibility of dealing with these matters in my area. I welcome the fact that dialogue is on-going, and that consultation with families continues, especially on the issue of compensation.
I turn now to the tone of the report. I want to look at the parts played by MAFF, the Department of Health and by those at every level of Government who had responsibilities in this matter. Bearing in mind what the families involved are seeking to find out, I invite hon. Members to consider how well those responsibilities were discharged.
Inevitably, the question arises whether BSE might be transmissible to human beings. At what stage did that emerge as a clear possibility, and was the response to it adequate? The inquiry made some very severe criticisms. It concluded that, in the first half of 1987, there was a policy that one senior veterinary investigation officer described as
a total suppression of all information on the subject".
We have heard today about the events of 1988, to which my right hon. Friend the Minister addressed some of his remarks. Even after March 1987, it was demonstrated that there was a strategy of restricting the dissemination of information about BSE. Clearly that was, to say the least, somewhat unhelpful, both then and now.

The inquiry concluded that the principal reason for this was concern about the possible effect on exports, and the political implications should news get out that a possible TSE in cattle had been discovered in Britain.
Many more people should have been involved in taking that decision, if it was the right decision to take. I do not believe that that was the case. The problem, on all the evidence, jumped from species to species—from cattle to feline consumption, and then to the human chain. That must have taken a lot of time. The response, in the view of the families concerned, was not one that they would have regarded to be as urgent and imperative as the facts then known invited it to be.
That leads me to question the role of Ministers as the evidence has unfolded; the role of civil servants, although I take on board the views of my right hon. Friend the Minister; and even whether the Food Standards Agency—whose establishment I welcome—is as all-embracing as it might be, given what I believe could be its input in resolving some of the difficulties.
We cannot ignore the evidence that was before the committee, to which I shall refer as briefly as possible. It is important to have on the record some of the conclusions, and without wearying the House I will do that:
The Government did not lie to the public about BSE. It believed that the risks posed by BSE to humans were remote. The Government were preoccupied with preventing an alarmist over-reaction to BSE because it believed that the risk was remote. It is now clear that this campaign of reassurance was a mistake …
A vital industry has been dealt a body blow, inflicting misery on tens of thousands for whom livestock farming is their way of life …
BSE developed into an epidemic as a consequence of an intensive farming practice—the recycling of animal protein in ruminant feed. This practice, unchallenged over decades, was a recipe for disaster …
At times officials showed a lack of vigour in considering how policy should be turned into practice to the detriment of the efficacy of the measures taken.
Those are serious indictments. Although my right hon. Friend the Minister rightly advised us to consider the report as a whole, it is important that we address ourselves to those criticisms.
Earlier I expressed surprise at the absence of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). I am disappointed that he is not here to deal with some of the criticisms that were made of him, by contrast with the right hon. Member for South Norfolk. The Phillips report was particularly critical of the failure of the Government to review and evaluate the Southwood report, saying that there was at MAFF, as at the Department of Health, a team failure to subject the Southwood report to a proper review in order to evaluate whether the unexplained differences in approach to the food risk posed by BSE had explanations that appeared to be sound.
Some families recall the evidence that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe gave during phase 2. He was critical of the inquiry generally, and commented that the committee had become lost in papers and failed to understand how Government worked. He was particularly robust in asserting that the Southwood report had been subjected to a vigorous review in his Department. The Committee expressly rejected his evidence.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman told the committee that in his Department there had been copious review, correspondence and discussion about the report, which would have included the questions raised—


although he could not now remember the details of these.
He also referred to an "amazing quantity of exchanges" between his Department and that of the right hon. Member for South Norfolk. The Committee said:
We did not accept this evidence
and went on to say:
If offal is not safe for babies, why is it safe for adults?
The committee went on to say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have ensured that his Department reviewed the report and provided an answer if there was one. He did not.
I regret very much having to repeat those criticisms, but I would have thought that the families and the House expected the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be here to reply to these serious comments. Whatever further debate we have, we will not necessarily get all the replies that people would expect from Ministers involved over a lengthy period. We look forward to some responses which hitherto have been missing.
My right hon. Friend the Minister correctly referred to the role of the civil service and told us about the inquiry by Sheila Forbes. I take on board my right hon. Friend's sensitivity, but many of the families have conveyed the view that, given that there is no suggestion of disciplinary action, there may be a danger that what is perceived as the ethos of the civil service—that much goes on behind closed doors without people hearing much about it—is being endorsed by that approach.
The right hon. Member for South Norfolk gave his explanation of some events. He will forgive me for concluding that, frankly, even in that situation, perhaps some of the civil servants were protecting their own backs rather than Ministers'. That might be regarded as extreme, but families do take that view and we have to find a way of reassuring them about the role of civil servants and the need for openness and transparency in these matters.
I must now refer to the role of the FSA. It was a first-class decision to establish such an agency, which is long overdue. I welcomed it at the time and I think that it is a great credit to the Government that the decision was taken. However, I must express some of the reservations that some of the families have, although those are expressed in generally supportive comments about the work that the FSA is seeking to do. The families believe that their contribution will be acknowledged by Sir John Krebs and his staff.
Nevertheless, the families also believe it is symptomatic of attitudes that are prevalent in the civil service that while numbers of groups were invited by the FSA to be stakeholders in the BSE controls review—for example, the National Farmers Union, the Meat and Livestock Commission, the Small Abattoirs Federation, the Department of Health and MAFF—no invitation was extended to the Human BSE Foundation. Those involved had to speak from the floor if they chanced to be at a meeting. Nobody wanted that approach, probably not even the organisation itself. I believe that it can be corrected.
I thank the House for giving me a hearing and I hope that I have not inadequately expressed the view, the concerns and—dare I say it?—the anger of my constituents. If, in the light of the report, the Government's response and my right hon. Friend the Minister's excellent handling of the

situation, we get to a stage where lessons are learned and we can prevent such trauma from reoccurring, the deaths of my constituent Donna Maria McGivern and many others will not have been in vain.

Mr. John Gummer: I am sure that all hon. Members would wish to associate themselves with the early comments of the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), and those of the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) about the anguish of the families. It is also common ground between us that Lord Phillips has produced an exemplary and exhaustive report. He has approached the subject with great clarity. Later I want to concentrate on an aspect on which further work remains to be done.
Although I was not criticised by Lord Phillips, it is right to try to draw some lessons from my experience and that wonderful thing, hindsight. I shall use the short time available to do that. I want to build on the comments of my right hon. Friernd the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) about judicial review.
If we are to learn the lessons of the report, we must put ourselves in the position of a future Minister who tries to act differently, as it suggests. Such a Minister faces the continuing problem of the interpretation of the rule of law in the United Kingdom compared with many other nations. We do not have administrative law, and Ministers have to behave in a specific manner when making decisions.
Let us take the case of feeding meat protein to herbivores. The report states that the activity is not new, but dates back to the 1920s. Our legal system means that if, in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s or 1970s, a Minister had said, "That is unusual; I'm not happy about feeding meat protein to herbivores. I think it would be better to ban it", he would have been subject to judicial review and unable to effect his intention. That is also true today. Many might say that the same anxieties are provoked by feeding fishmeal to herbivores. However, I know that no Government or Minister could ban that practice in the absence of anything other than a general belief that such an activity was not proper.
If we try to examine the issues in the way that Lord Phillips suggests, we must consider carefully the implications of our system of judicial review. That runs counter to another aspect of the report that we want to support: the ability of people beyond the confines of Whitehall and Westminster to intervene and say that actions are unfair ant unacceptable. It is a pride of our nation, stemming from 1688, that we have a system in which the rule of law, rules, regulations and attitudes apply as much to Ministers as to anyone else. I do not suggest that we are considering an easy problem or that I have a solution However, it deserves serious consideration.

Mr. Boswell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gummer: I prefer not to give way because I have only 15 minutes in which to speak.
The second issue that requires careful consideration is the relationship between openness and science. When I became Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I said that I would put in the public arena all the advice that I


received. The present Minister will agree that there was no occasion when I failed to do that. He referred to such advice this afternoon. We are as one; that issue is not controversial.
However, the way in which one deals with risk is controversial. The Food Standards Agency recently had to consider the risks of imported French meat. The new, independent agency—its independe rice is uncontested—made a clear decision, which it stated. I accept the Minister's explanation of the two aspects that were tackled when my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk asked him about that. However, it cannot be said that the decision received universal approbation.
One of the difficulties of assessing risk is that it is not possible, in any circumstances, to say that there is no risk. All that one can do is say that the risk is small, remote or unlikely at one end of the spectrum, and likely at the other. Even if that is repeated constantly, there are two reactions, which are not necessarily rational. The first is, "If the risk is as small as that, why are you bothering about it?" The second is, "If you can't tell me there's no risk, there must be a big risk." The difficulty lies in communication.
There is a problem when scientists say that a risk is remote. Actions must be proportionate to that. That is the nature of English law and Scots law; in that context, we are at one. I refer the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston to stem cells—an issue on which he and I agree—to show the difficulty of assessing what scientists tell us. We both have several deep doubts about what they have said.
There have been concerns about genetically modified organisms. One has only to read the, statements made by the Prime Minister on that issue, explaining the safety of GMOs, to see that he has based them on advice that he has properly taken from scientists. The Minister himself will know how difficult it is to frame legislation in a manner that not only protects the environment—I think that we share a similar view on tile dangers posed by GMOs to the environment—but avids the possibility of being caught in a judicial review that would overturn all ability to protect people in those circumstances. It is therefore a matter not only of the law but of how one can communicate the scientific view, when that view very firmly asserts that there is little risk or that the risk is very remote.
Although I think that various possible cases were examined, I do not think that the Phillips report takes the view that there have been restrictions on scientists. Simply as a matter of fact, I must say that whenever I found someone who was speaking differently from my advisers, I went to great trouble to investigate that person and his comments and whether I should give them credence.
Although I think that the events occurred before my time, I certainly looked into and revlewed carefully some of the matters that were criticised by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). As he will know, in such circumstances, there can be no question of Ministers sacking anyone. However, that was not the issue. The issue was to determine whether those who spoke differently had something to contribute. In all

circumstances, Ministers—like all hon. Members, I should hope—have to gather as many independent examples as possible, investigate the facts and heed them.

Mr. Ainger: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: No. I am really going to try to complete what I have to say in my 15 minutes, and I have only about five minutes left.
I have now to address the issue of the media—not to attack them, but for exemplary purposes. It would be very difficult to do what Phillips hopes that we shall do in future without taking that issue very seriously. I refer the Minister to one of my decisions which resulted in my closing a relatively large number of abattoirs. The media were not pressing me to close more abattoirs, but attacking me every time that I closed one. That situation continued, and even extended to enormous inaccuracies.
I remember taking one journalist to task. I told him that I had closed the abattoirs because I thought they had not been protecting the public health. I asked him why he did not telephone me before making such statements so that I could provide the facts. I said that I was quite open about providing the facts, which are all in the public domain. He said, "If I telephoned you I would not have a story, and I have to pay the school fees." Although that is an extreme example, it is a serious one. We have to recognise that moods in the media change enormously. Even if one is seeking to be an honourable and decent reporter of what is being said, one gets caught up in the particular mood.
I used abattoirs as an example because, in that case, the mood turned out to be entirely wrong. So tough was it, however, that I found it necessary to see every hon. Member—some were Labour Members—in whose constituency an abattoir was being closed, to explain in detail why we felt that closure was necessary. The attack from outside was that the closures were either a wicked Brussels invention, which is of course the most convenient explanation for the media, or that I had a thing about small family abattoirs, as some of them were. If the point on mood is true in that situation, it must be true also in the situations that we are discussing.
I come now to a difficult issue. It is easy to pick out examples of a person's comments that turn out to be right. It is also perfectly right for hon. Members to stand up and say, "I remind the Minister that, in 1988, I said so and so", and those comments turned out to be right. However, although I do not think it is necessary, I could read out a series of comments that people made in 1988, 1992 and 1994 that turned out to be entirely wrong.
There was, for example, great pressure on me to ban all milk produced in the United Kingdom because it might be an agent. The scientists told me, with the same firmness that they used when telling me that BSE transmission was a remote possibility, that transmission by milk was a remote possibility. The difficulty is that I happened to be right in one case, but—clearly, as events turned out—wrong in the other. The advice, however, was the same. In both cases, my determination to accept that advice and to reach to the edges in the direction of safety was precisely the same.
As I am in the fortunate position of not having been criticised, I am not trying to defend myself. I am merely saying that that is my experience of doing the job.


A serious issue for future Ministers is to determine how, in the context of Phillips's concerns, we can square a circle that is difficult enough to deal with at the time.
In my last minute, I should like to say something about civil servants. I think that the Minister has taken a brave and proper stand in his decision neither to read nor to comment on what is a civil service matter. I come from a business background. I was a Minister for 16 years. One of the most difficult things about being a Minister is that one has no personnel responsibility. One could not run a business on that basis. I merely say that that is a right thing. It is a necessary protection for the public from politicking in the civil service. The time to stand up for principle is when it is most difficult. The Minister has done that, and I commend him for it.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I listened carefully to the comments of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). I remember his years as the Minister in charge of agriculture from 1988 to 1992. I would have preferred it if he had addressed most of his remarks to his period in office rather than commenting on judicial review and criticising the media. Those were smokescreens rather than proper accountability for his period in government and the decisions taken at that time.
I have taken a strong interest in BSE since my election as a Member of Parliament. I am a scientist and the constituency that I represent is rural. West Wales has a great deal of livestock agriculture. The first speech that my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) made in the House in 1988 was an Adjournment debate, in which he drew attention to the problem of BSE. I remember having a conversation with him about it the following week. In the months and years that followed, as the epidemic unrolled across Britain, I took part in debates here, watched what was happening in the media and was in touch with farmers and farming unions in my constituency, and my views are based on that first-hand experience.
Much of my experience is reflected in the Phillips report, although my view is more polarised and less generous than that of Lord Phillips. I want to refer to two comments made by farmers. I am surprised that, in the two or three hours of the debate so far, little direct reference has been made to farmers, their unions and their role in the crisis. A large part of the secrecy and the hiding of the crisis came from individual farmers and the farming unions, the Conservative constituency associations, MAFF and so on.
In 1989, a farmer came to see me at one of my surgeries to reveal something connected with the problem of BSE. He said that a cow on his smallholding that had contracted BSE had had a calf just a month or two before. He was surprised that, although the cow was destroyed and he had received compensation, the calf was allowed to survive and develop. As the cow must have been developing BSE during most of its pregnancy, he thought that there was a danger of maternal transmission.
I wrote to MAFF and tabled a series of parliamentary questions, because it struck me forcefully that the precautionary principle was not operating. It was

self-evident common sense to the farmer and to me that it would safeguard human health to destroy the calf as well as the cow. When I told that story a few months later to a prominent member of my local farming union at the united counties show in Carmarthen, he said that there was no risk whatever of transmission. He told me that a cow on his farm had had BSE. The price of calves was good in the late 1980s. He knew that there was a valuable calf inside the cow, so he arranged for a caesarean section so that the calf could survive. He was so convinced that there was no risk that he arranged for a vet to come out and conduct an operation.
Sadly, that was the climate that prevailed among farmers, the farmers unions and, indeed, in MAFF. They believed that although an animal was severely diseased, there was zero risk of maternal transmission—there was no problem. The then Government completely denied that there could be any relationship between BSE and a risk to human health, even though, as we heard earlier, the Southwood report conceded in 1990 that there was a remote risk of such transmission.
In May 1990, the House debated the subject. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal was then the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) opened the debate for the Labour Opposition. When I re-read my own contribution to the debate, I found that my Labour colleagues and I reflected the views of the Labour party at the time. We made it clear that the transmission of BSE to humans could never be ruled out. Indeed, by 1990, there was evidence of transmission to other species—zoo animals, cats and so on. Prudence or the precautionary principle should have told us of the risk.
Hansard shows that, during that debate, Labour Members—especially my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields—were howled down by Conservative Back Benchers, who accused us throughout of scaremongering. Unfortunately, however, what we feared came to pass. We were constantly told that there was no evidence of BSE being transmitted to humans, but the absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. There is always that danger.
I am delighted that, during the first few years of a Labour Government, we established the Food Standards Agency; it is important that, instead of being part of MAFF—with its conflict of interest between consumer and producer—the agency is independent of Government and reports to the Department of Health. The producer thus has no direct involvement.
Several hon. Members have cited the comments in the Phillips report about the then Government's policy when BSE became a problem. Their fears of public over-reaction resulted in the presentation of policy by Ministers "whose object was sedation". They tried to pretend that there was no problem and to cover up its very existence.
Reference has been made to civil servants and former Ministers. I regret that no action is to be taken against any individual. A front-page report in today's Western Mail quotes a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger). It says:
Terry Harvey, from Saundersfoot in West Wales, whose 25-year-old daughter Marianne died of the disease in August 1999, said the money brought little comfort.


'I would be prepared to forgo every penny in return for an opportunity to question some of the ministers who were in charge during the BSE outbreak. For someone to admit responsibility for our children's deaths is more important than any amount of money.'
Parents and relatives of CJD victims share that view, as do the general public. An enormous blunder was committed; it spanned about 15 years and no one has owned up to their errors, nor explained why what was originally a problem has become a catastrophe.
I hope that, under the new Government and certainly with the Minister in charge, all scientific committees, not just those in MAFF, become much more open and transparent. They should conduct as many of their meetings as they can in public, so that they can be publicly reported. Not only their advice but their meetings should be open to the press and public.
I welcome consumer representation, but it needs to go wider. Environmental groups, especially those dealing with GM foods and anything that has a consequence for the environment, should be as broadly based as possible. We need to incorporate dissenting voices much more. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields referred to the experience of Dr. Harash Narang in the BSE story. Other people, such as Richard Lacey and Stephen Dealer, expressed dissenting opinions, but their opinions were not generally taken into account.
When in opposition in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Labour party pressed for much greater effort to be put into BSE research and into developing a diagnostic test, first in dead animals and then in live ones. That research work was not done on a sufficient scale in the 1990s, when £1 million, £2 million or £3 million was involved, and the epidemic is now costing us at least £1 billion a year. That early work should have been done. There are tests now, but they are not very reliable. In a sense, we have lost five or 10 years simply by not making such research a priority in the 1990s.
The costs of BSE are incalculable. So far, there have been 94 victims of CJD in Britain, but we do not know whether the eventual total will be hundreds or thousands. We have heard about the problems with blood transfusion and the fact that it is impossible to sterilise surgical instruments if they are infected with prions because they are so robust and heat resistant. The cost to the NHS will, therefore, be substantial.
There are now incidents of BSE in France, Germany, Ireland and Portugal. Instead of being disappointed and sorry for their problems, some Conservative Back Benchers and farmers almost revel in the fact that BSE is now found in other countries. In fact, Britain exported BSE to Europe. It can all be traced back to animal feed that was recklessly exported. Feed contaminated with meat and bonemeal was banned in Britain in 1988, but it was sent abroad.
Could BSE happen again? Could we suffer from something like it again? Of course there is a danger that such diseases could evolve, but I hope that the Government now have in place suitable mechanisms—through greater transparency and openness, but particularly through the Food Standards Agency—to ensure that it cannot happen again.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I thank the Minister for his measured and careful approach to this extremely difficult and distressing situation. I congratulate him on his forward-looking approach and the fact that he is determined to build on the lessons referred to in the Phillips report.
I should like to associate myself with the apologies and regrets expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), the Conservative spokesman on agriculture. The tragic fact is that, no matter what we say this afternoon, nothing can bring back the loved ones of the families that have been so tragically affected by the whole episode of BSE. The very best that we can do is to take the lessons that have to be learned from the circumstances and the experiences that we have all had. In that respect, I wish to express my regrets for the agriculture industry, whose once prosperous and thriving cattle sector is a shadow of its former self, although obviously it is rebuilding itself.
The report is admirable and expresses the issues very clearly in a readable and comprehensible manner. It makes every possible effort to be fair and even-handed. In such a debate, it is to be expected that hon. Members will be tempted to quote selectively from the report. However, Lord Phillips laid it on the line that the Government of the time were
anxious to act in the best interests of human and animal health.
He said:
The Government did not lie to the public about BSE … it believed that the risk was remote.
He also said that
allegations of a government 'cover-up' of the risks posed by BSE … cannot be substantiated.
That is clear and unequivocal.
Equally, however, things went wrong, and obviously there are lessons to be learned. I shall concentrate on only two, which I have briefly discussed, in passing, with the Minister. The first lesson relates to openness and media reaction. In his opening remarks, the Minister described that as a notoriously difficult area. There were several food scares in the late 1980s and the 1990s. We had the salmonella in eggs episode; questions were asked about soft cheeses; there was a problem with apple juice—and, I seem to recall, with carrots; I cannot now remember what it was, but I recall headlines of the "killer carrots" variety.
There is undoubtedly a genuine dilemma, which the Minister has already faced and will continue to face, concerning how best to explain what are, in all fairness, half-completed scientific findings, which may or may not be confirmed, without there being a huge, terrified and unjustified media outcry. Some may say that a media outcry does not matter. Some of my right hon. Friends have expressed their fear that a judicial review may arise from an unjustified media outcry. The public can make up their own mind if they have access to the correct facts, but "killer carrots" was not a factual description of the problem with that particular food.
During my time at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which was only 14 months, there was a change in the scientific advice that we were given based on the finding of infectivity in the distal ileum of calves. That episode is described in great detail on pages 137 and


138 of volume 1 of the report. It was also exhaustively examined in the evidence that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), the then Parliamentary Secretary at MAFF, and I gave to the inquiry. There is no doubt that we strained every nerve in an attempt to give information as completely, accurately and speedily as possible. Within five days of receiving the advice from SEAC, we had produced a complete press report and informed the EU and, it goes without saying, Parliament. The report commended us for that.
However, I recall—this is a point for the Minister—that having given a lengthy, detailed press conference and issued a press release, there was a curious silence from the sound and television media. Fearing that I had not been as open as possible, I went to Millbank and said, "Does anyone want to interview me about an increase of infectivity in the distal ileum of calves?" Although I was trying to be open with the media, they were not too interested. It is possible that I might have been accused of trying to cover something up merely because an issue, which was important and serious and which represented a new development, seemed, on the face of it, to be boring and technical. It is easier for the media to say, "Killer carrot". It is not always as easy as it seems to be as open as one should be. I know that the Minister realises that, and I am trying to share my experience of that problem with the House.
The issue of accountability and responsibility causes me some anxiety on the Minister's behalf. On page 30 of volume 1, the report refers to the division of responsibility for enforcing regulations between central and local government. It says:
Although central government was largely responsible for the Regulations made about BSE, it usually fell to local government to enforce them.
Local authorities were required to attend the inquiry and gave evidence collectively, which was fine. I am not in the least worried about taking responsibility for the safe practices of slaughterhouses. Although other people—the chairmen of environmental health committees in local government—had been elected to take responsibility for the conditions in them, I accept that the Minister stands at the end of the line. However, as the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) said, there was the issue of the division of responsibility.
To address that problem, we took the controversial decision of creating the Meat Hygiene Service, which took on responsibility for many matters. The report deals with that in the section on lessons to be learned. We believed that we had gone some way to solving the problems. I think that the Minister may face similar difficulties because responsibilities have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The report says:
When BSE emerged, the Territories"—
its word—
were in general content to follow the lead of MAFF and
the Department of Health. It went on:
Under devolution, a similar attitude cannot be relied upon.
I know that the Minister has the situation in hand, but it is important for people to march together when there is an overarching issue of public health. I am sure that he

will continue to maintain that approach. The matter is delicate. New elected and devolved institutions are naturally wary of any encroachment of what they see as their territory, although public health is clearly relevant across the country.
I want again to express my heartfelt regret and sorrow for those families who have been so grievously affected by the episode. In explaining how it was to be a Minister in government at that time, when less scientific knowledge was available, the report helps to explain today's circumstances. However, we cannot expect the families to see it that way—how can they? I believe that the Minister's positive approach and the support that has been expressed on both sides of the House may help individuals and families to cope with their grief.

Mr. Jim Murphy: I am grateful to have the opportunity to participate in this important debate.
All hon. Members hold advice surgeries and I first became involved with the issue of vCJD after I held a surgery in my constituency. In a cold hall in the village of Eaglesham one of my surgeries turned out be anything but routine. A gentleman, whom I did not know, appeared to explain what had happened to his family. I have the permission of that gentleman, Mr. Tibbert, to mention the fact that, tragically, be lost his wife, Margaret, when she was 29. Listening to the experience of the Tibbert family and learning that a very young son had lost his mother to the disease ignited my interest in the issue.
Since the terrible but important circumstances in which I met Mr. Tibbert, I have come to learn that a second family in my constituency—they do not desire any publicity—have lost young son to this terrible disease. I have also come to I know them and discussed their tragic experiences with them.
I have explained the background to my keen interest in the subject and, as the first paragraph of the introduction of the Phillips report makes clear, the issue is not only a tragedy for the families involved, but it has become a national tragedy. In my conversations with those who have become interested in the subject because of their personal experiences or through their interest in food safety, food hygiene and public safety, I have learned that there is a general welcome for the way in which the Government have dealt with the tragedy and continue to seek to deal with it.
The Government commissioned the Phillips report, responded positively to it and have made a genuine attempt to provide a care package to support the families affected. I do not think that that is a party political point, because I believe that a care package was not in place in the past because this was a newly discovered disease that Governments were not accustomed to dealing with. The package has now been put in place, but I dare say that, if the Conservative party were in power, it would also be undertaking to provide a care package, to consult the families of the victims and to consider proposals for compensation.
As with the compensation for far east prisoners of war, it is not the money but recognition of the problems that is important. Therefore I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to make strenuous efforts to continue to consult the families of the victims, because they believe that to be crucially important.
All hon. Members who have met the families of the victims would have several outstanding questions. Some of those questions about who knew what and when and about where we apportion the primary responsibility may never be answered. I suspect only the consciences and memories of the Ministers and civil servants who were directly involved and who attended the meetings will be the true testimony to what happened.
I do not seek to put words into the mouths of my constituents but there is a desperate desire among the victims' families to get to the bottom of some of the questions. All I ask is that everyone who has taken part in this interesting debate and those Members who read it will try for a moment—I know that it is an impossible task—to consider what they would do if one of their loved ones or relatives was involved. What would they expect the Government or Opposition to do? Sometimes such demands seem to be unrealistic, or are perceived to be, in the world of the civil service, or that of the Government. We should have empathy with those who are making the demands, and I know that my right hon. Friend has. We should understand their loss. It is that sense of loss that continues to motivate them, and it will do so every day of their lives until they feel that they have got to the bottom of what really happened.
There is the question of who was at fault. It is undoubted that some politicians share a proportion of the blame. The Phillips report says that the campaign of reassurance that was undertaken was mistaken. It identifies the fact that the March 1996 Cabinet refused to ban meat from animals older than 30 months, but that, subsequently, that policy was changed.
I suspect that the Conservative politicians who were involved at the time will have an opportunity to play a part in the debate. I think that they will do themselves a disservice, and a disservice to the House, if they try to rewrite history and their role in it. As my right hon. Friend the Minister has said, we should accept the report in the round, including in equal measure its criticisms and its acknowledgements. We should acknowledge that mistakes were made and individuals should not try to wash their hands of them. No attempt should be made to rewrite history. Those involved should accept the portion of blame that is rightly attributed to them. The families of the victims will think much more of the former Ministers who were involved if they do that.
I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) about the civil service. I am echoing also the words of one of my constituents, Mr. Tibbert. The civil service is unaccountable and cannot respond to the criticisms that are made of it. However, the Phillips report states that even the policies that were belatedly agreed to were not fully implemented.
My right hon. Friend said that it was primarily or exclusively the responsibility of the permanent secretary to ensure that lessons are learned within the civil service. I understand that. Given that we have not heard the last of this tragic issue, it should be understood that the families of the victims want to find answers wherever they may be, whether in the political sphere or the wider sphere of government.
The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor)—he is no longer in his place, but I do not think that I shall quote him unfairly—was asked by

my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston about paragraph 553 of the Phillips report, which deals with the safety of baby food and whether a ban should be extended to all foodstuffs. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that he asked that question, and requested that the ban should be extended. He suggested that the report is inaccurate in its criticism of him. Whether that is a denial of convenience or one of conviction, I do not know. I am not in a position to make that judgment.
The Minister of the day is identified in the report and it is suggested that he failed in his duty and responsibility. It seems that he contests that and suggests that the blame lies elsewhere. That may amplify demands among some relatives that answers should be sought in a much wider sphere. I accept what has been said about the role of the permanent secretary, but in this instance it seems that the right hon. Member for South Norfolk is saying that such a dialogue took place between him and the then permanent secretary. Sensitivity—which I know my right hon. Friend the Minister has—will be needed in future regarding the role of the civil service. While my right hon. Friend does not have direct responsibility in any way for the civil service, can he make sure that the permanent secretary ensures that lessons are learned in the wider civil service?
As other Members have said, it is important to concentrate on what can be done now. The establishment of the Food Standards Agency is an important and ground-breaking initiative which, hopefully, will reduce the chances of this tragedy being repeated. Tragically, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), described the creation of the FSA as public relations nonsense. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman regrets saying that and is considerably wiser now that the agency is up and running and doing important work.
In the short time available, I should like to single out an issue that has not yet been identified in our debate—the failure of Departments in Scotland to deal with the issue. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for dealing with different aspects of that matter. Paragraph 1104 on page 216 of the report, which deals with the appraisal of concerns about human health, states that in Scotland, any analysis was conducted by the agriculture department. There was no wider consultation; others did not participate in it and did not give their opinion.
In the report, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland is quoted as saying that it expected its comments to form
no more than one element in any Scottish Office assessment of an issue … But no such wider assessment appears to have been made by … officials
in Scotland. That statement is worrying, and I hope that in the welcome, but complex, interrelationship between the House of Commons and the devolved institutions throughout the United Kingdom, there will be discussions and dialogues between different Departments in each devolved Administration and between Departments of different Assemblies and Parliaments.
A real concern of which I have experience involves the fact that the support services that I mentioned were missing in the past and a care package was not available. I welcome comments that the financial contribution to a future care package will be increased. Should the need


arise—heaven forfend—the current £1 million will be increased. I hope that my right hon. Friend will confirm that that substantial commitment will be extended if, unfortunately, that is the case.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's earlier comments on openness and the fact that he will publish the research that informs his decisions on any future matters of this nature. Of course, we all wish that that had been the case and that a minimum level of best practice had been applied by the previous Government; we wish that all of the information that informed decisions had been placed in the public domain. Sadly, however, those in office at the time chose not to do that.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will take the bold decision to publish research that he discounts in reaching his decisions, not simply that with which he agrees.

Mr. Nick Brown: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. We must remember that rejected opinions have also informed decision making, so it is right for scientific views to be placed in the public domain.

Mr. Murphy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, which will be welcomed by hon. Members of all parties and by all the families who have tragically been affected by the disease.
As has been said, the report will not be the end of the affair. The tragedy is eternal for the victims' families.

Mr. Tom King: I rise to speak not as a former Minister who had responsibility for the matters under discussion, but as somebody who has taken a keen interest in BSE for a considerable number of years. Looking at the Minister, I realise that he is the eighth Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with whom I have raised the issue. I suspect that some current MAFF officials know that all too well.
I am present because I want to speak about the contribution made by a remarkable constituent of mine, Mr. Mark Purdey, to progress on BSE. He appears frequently in the Phillips report and his theories and hypotheses deserve serious attention. I welcome the report. Some thought that it might conclude the matter, but as the Minister said, it is merely a staging post in the search to identify the source of BSE and, very possibly, of nvCJD. That is why I agreed with the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) when he said that we owe it to all the people who have suffered so horrifically, especially from nvCJD, to seek to identify the causes of this terrible calamity. The report does not identify those causes. It states merely that
BSE probably originated from a novel source early in the 1970s … as a consequence of a gene mutation.
A significant number of people do not believe that that is correct and many scientists hold alternative views.
I appreciate the eight Ministers of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whom I have bothered about the issue. I refer especially to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), who ensured that Mr. Purdey had access to officials to discuss some of his

approaches, and other hon. Friends who held similar responsibilities and other current Ministers have done the same.
I am not a scientist, so I hope that the House will give me some licence on the matter. Some of the correspondence that I received from Mr. Purdey was completely incomprehensible to me, but I sought to ensure that it received proper consideration. I should like to describe Mr. Purdey's background. He is a dairy farmer in my constituency. He was a scholar at school and declined a university place to study zoology and psychology in 1972 in order to start a pioneering organic farming community in the west of Ireland. He has been farming ever since and is an independent scientist who is involved in the aetiology of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and has been investigating environmental factors in isolated clusters of TSEs throughout the world. He has published five articles on BSE and organophosphorus theory in peer-reviewed journals.
That is his background. His position originates from his opposition to the Warble Fly Order 1982. When the order was introduced, he refused to dress cattle with organophosphates because he believed that it was dangerous. He thought it that the nervous systems of cattle could be damaged by dosing at the Government's advised level, which was three times the manufacturers' recommended dose for the use of that extremely powerful chemical. As somebody who has dipped sheep, I, too, know a little bit about the strength of OP dip. Mr. Purdey's view is accepted by Lord Phillips. His theory is not that the chemical is the cause of BSE, but that it could be the rigger that destabilises the nervous system of cattle.
I should like to illustrate the way in which Mr. Purdey has pursued his theory, and how the official view has altered over time. I have correspondence that I am sure was provided on the best advice available to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries which states that the overwhelming probability was that BSE came from scrapie. Subsequently, at the National Farmers Union conference, Professor Sir John Pattison announced that there was a 50:50 possibility that it came from scrapie, and I remember the impact that that had on farmers. The Phillips report now says that it is fallacious to say that it came from scrapie.
Meanwhile, Mr. Purdey marches on with his theory, which he has sustained and reinforced. It concerns the use of organophosphates. OPs are used to treat cattle with warble fly, but many humans are also exposed to OPs. They are used in crop spraying and they occur in shampoos used to treat children with headlice, and dogs. My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk asked for dog leads and collars to be examined when I raised the matter with her originally. Therefore, animals and humans are exposed to OPs in their environment.
Mr. Purdey's work has continued significantly since he gave evidence to the Phillips inquiry. He has identified a link between a copper deficiency and the manganese replacement that appears to interact with OPs to cause what he luridly describes as a lethal chain reaction in the brain. My scientific knowledge is woefully inadequate, but, apparently, copper binds to the prion, and, if copper is absent, manganese will then bind.
Mr. Purdey has drawn attention to the increasing use of manganese. We now use manganese instead of lead in petrol. Manganese as used in increasing amounts in


poultry feed to enhance growth and egg production. It is also used as a lick to enhance bone growth in calves. Therefore, it is present in the environment. I understand that 98 per cent. of the manganese that is fed to poultry ends up in chicken litter which goes into compound feeds.
Therefore, the theory on which Mr. Purdey is working is that the interaction between OPs, which is accepted by the Phillips inquiry as a possible trigger, when combined with a manganese surplus in the brain, leads to the chain reaction that is causing the problem.
I do not know whether that is right, but I have pressed continuously for Mr. Purdey to be given support and encouragement in the form of research funds so that he can test out his theory. Professors in Italy and France have just completed studies which produce the same correlations as Mr. Purdey has produced independently as a lone dairy farmer, trying conscientiously to research the matter and capable of speaking for four hours before the Phillips inquiry.
There now appears to be a growing body of evidence that that is a much more serious theory than previously thought. It was certainly resisted by scientists in the past, but I hope that, in the light of the Minister's comments, he will ensure that the matter is pursued. I welcome his appointment of Professor Gabriel Horn. I hope that his inquiry will be sufficiently wide-ranging to consider individual viewpoints—I do not say prejudices, although the danger is that people may have preconceived ideas—and will be open to new ideas, so that the matter is pursued.
I pray in aid an important article written on 10 April 1997 by the then hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), now the Minister for the Environment, entitled "Let's find the real cause of BSE". He said:
A new government should sweep aside these evasions.
The article was written about two or three weeks before the election, so it was an attack on the previous Government. He continued:
The Purdey theory should now be taken very seriously by the authorities.
It is disappointing that we are now at the end of this period of government and what the Minister for the Environment wrote in opposition has still not been implemented. The contents of his article and his approach were precisely right.
I recently met Baroness Hayman. I hope that there is a determination to ensure that funds are not limited to traditional lines of inquiry and research, and that the Department will enable Mr. Pun ley's theory to be investigated thoroughly.
I welcome what the Minister said about making any scientific advice or material available to the public. I challenge him straight away, because some important material on OPs should be made public. Will he publish the work of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate on the reformulation of organophosphates and the removal of phenol? That material is of significant scientific importance, and should be in the public domain. I am sure that the Minister meant what he said, because he was very forthright. He gave a categoric assurance that he would make such material available, so I hope that the Minister for Public Health will confirm that.
It is not for me to determine whether these theories are right or wrong. For 15 years, I have supported my constituent because I did not think that his idea was crazy

or eccentric. Originally, a cow of his with BSE that did not fit the official description of the cause of the disease was the trigger for him to pursue this career of investigation that is now gathering increasing support and understanding. I hope that his theory will be examined, because if it is right, the origins of BSE and CJD are not what we think they are, and the basis of the approach that has been followed all these years may be wrong. No one in the House would disagree that we owe it to all those who have been afflicted—whether in the agriculture industry or the families affected by CJD—not to rest until we have done everything we can to identify the cause of this terrible suffering.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: In their moving speeches, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) spoke of two of his constituents and my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) told us about Donna McGivern, and I want to dedicate my remarks to one of my constituents, Donna McIntyre.
Donna was born on 13 July 1979. She lived initially in Northfield in my constituency, and went to Old Meldrum primary school and later to Dyce academy. Reading the profile that she wrote about herself at the end of her time at the school, I was reminded of many of the pupils whom I taught over the years in Aberdeen.
Donna talked about her interests: the brownies, the guides, the choir, swimming, badminton and squash. She said how she enjoyed going on holiday with a friend's family to Malta, and going on holiday to Holland with the choir in 1994. She talked of how she enjoyed her work experience as a nursery nurse and helping in an old people's home, and her ambition to go into nursing or accounting. That fits closely with the account of her by her family and friends as a caring, helpful and loving person. In 1999, she worked with the Prince's Trust Volunteers.
Towards the end of 1999 and the beginning of the millennium, Donna began to suffer from depression. In the early months of last year, she became increasingly confused. She went missing from her flat, and her sister, Lisa, found her and took her back to her father's home. She started to behave as if she were drunk. She started to lose co-ordination and basic control of her movements. She went to the doctor, and then to Fosterhill hospital on 26 August, and in the following month it was diagnosed that she almost certainly had new variant CJD. She has had very good care ever since, but her condition has steadily deteriorated. Since November she has not been able to speak. She sleeps a lot, and responds to being hugged and held by friends and family; sometimes she gives a great smile. But to appreciate the extent of the tragedy it is important to realise fully the awfulness of each person's case, and also the potential scale of the problem.
I want to express my gratitude to Donna's father, Billy McIntyre, who is present in the Strangers Gallery and who has shared his experience with me, and to Professor Hugh Pennington, the recognised leading authority on the subject, who has shared his professional expertise with me. I shall try to speak on Billy's behalf. He told me that he wanted to speak not just on his own behalf, but on behalf of other victims' families. I cannot presume to give voice to what Donna would say if she were not deprived of speech.
When we discussed the scale of this, Billy said to me, "This could be a time bomb." Professor Hugh Pennington told me, "There are so many unpredictable factors that we really cannot know the potential scale." Because the disease is a new variant, we do not know whether it will behave in the same way as the comparatively rare disease that we know as CJD. Indeed, if it is similar to that disease, the incubation period could be as long as 40 years. At present, it seems that all who have suffered have had a similar genetic make-up involving the MM prion. Apparently, just under 40 per cent. of the population harbour the prion.
Professor Pennington told me that we could be talking about hundreds or about hundreds of thousands. Taking the worst-case analysis, we should think of the resulting devastation of our economy, given the cost of compensation and care; but we should think even more of the human cost and the personal devastation.
As was rightly pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams), the disease originated in Britain. Tragically, for too long and to an excessive extent we exported it not just to the rest of Europe but to the rest of the world, including the third world. That means that some of the world's poorest people may be affected. All too often disasters hit the poorest, in disproportionate measure.
Indeed, we may find a disproportionate distribution by wealth in our own country. One of the most infectious causes of the disease is MRM—mechanically recovered meat—which went into the cheapest sausages, pies and burgers. I now see a disturbing hypocrisy in past occasions when comparatively affluent people could be observed eating prime beef that would never be a source of danger, and saying that British beef was safe.
I want to discuss three things: blame, lessons and restitution. First, let me deal with blame. Billy told me that it was difficult to express the degree of anger and incomprehension that he was experiencing. He said it was an irony that what was done yesterday was described as no-fault compensation. Some people certainly had no fault—the poor victims, who could not be more innocent.
Billy said something that ties in with what was said by my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr. He asked who would be brave enough to plead guilty. Would it be the feed manufacturers who put commercial interests before the public interest? Would it be the farmers—I am certain that there are some, somewhere—who were less than scrupulous about suspected BSE? Would it be the abattoirs and renderers who took insufficient care in extracting SBO? Would it be some of the members of the media—a question raised by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)? They prefer not to remember now that they were not all very helpful at one time. What about civil servants and Ministers?
Billy McIntyre said that he feels that two people are especially to blame. The first is a civil servant—Keith Meldrum, the chief veterinary officer. I recognise that Phillips says that Keith Meldrum was very active later on, and I accept that he was. I also accept the points made in his defence by the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), but I still believe that Mr. Meldrum deserves blame.
For far too long, Keith Meldrum held to the dogmatic assumption that only large quantities of infected material would pass on the disease. For that reason, he did not realise the importance of separating the processing of feeds. He delayed the introduction of bans for too long, and there was insufficient rigour in the inspection and enforcement regimes. Moreover, exports should have been halted as soon as fear of the disease emerged. In fact, those exports were vastly increased at precisely that stage.
There is a real worry that the concerns of the industry weighed more heavily with Mr. Meldrum in the early stages than did the concerns of safety. To be fair, however, he is representative of others who are responsible in the same way. I repeat a point that is often made: in this country, we do not give sufficient recognition to corporate criminal liability—what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food called institutional failure.
As a result, Phillips too often blames fairly senior civil servants and Ministers, who may have been directly responsible, but he forgets that the chain of command goes to a much higher level, in the civil service and among Ministers. Billy McIntyre offers a balance in that respect—he told me that the other person whom he really blames is Margaret Thatcher.
I accept the point made by the right hon. Member for South Norfolk, who said that Phillips makes a completely convincing case in relation to the issue of rendering in 1979, when Margaret Thatcher had been accused of direct responsibility. Phillips found that rendering did not make a difference, and that BSE could not be destroyed by rendering.
Other influences were at work, however. Among them are the cuts in research funding, including that for animal and veterinary services, the pressures on research institutes to get external funding and to devote more time to those matters that helped commerce and less to what was necessary for safety, the decreases in the veterinary services referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), and the emphasis on deregulation referred to by my right hon. Friend the Minister and by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields. Ministers, civil servants and scientists were all affected by an ethos that, far too often and far too readily, put profits before people, wealth before health and, as it turned out, money before life.
Billy says he feels disgust at the honours with which Baroness Thatcher is loaded. There will doubtless be many memorials to her, probably including some in this House, but it should be remembered that for some people her memorial may be the terrible mad-cow legacy of BSE and CJD. Donna was born just a few weeks after Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister. We must eradicate the BSE infection, but we must also eradicate the more crass and materialistic aspects of Thatcherism.
There are other lessons to be learned. Billy says that we must guarantee that this does not happen again, and we must first guarantee that transmission of BSE and CJD is not still going on. In that respect, we must look at what is happening in Germany, and in respect of possible medical transmission.
Putting those guarantees in place means that we must be vigilant. We must improve surveillance, and not do so at the expense of research into the causes of the disease and into possible cures—or at least research into the


possibility of arresting the disease. Secrecy must no longer hold sway. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 is in place, but we need far more openness, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) said. Departmentalism must be broken down; we must have joined-up government, including across devolution, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood said. There must be an end to the dogmatic defence of departmental positions, which can still far too often go on. There must be less arrogance and more flexibility. We need more scientists in certain Departments at top levels.
Although I see no rational connection between BSE and genetically modified foods—in fact, some of the suspicions of the latter that have followed are irrational— I recognise the point made by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal; that MBMs were being used as feed for half a century before we began to discover what was happening, and were used for most of the last century. We must always observe the precautionary principle.
I conclude by speaking of restitution. The £25 million initial compensation is very welcome as a start, and the vast increase in help with care assistance is also immensely valuable. However, I am again reminded of something that Billy McIntyre said to me. He said that the Government gave compensation to farmers so that they could replace lost animals. No compensation given to families can replace a lost daughter or a lost son. What compensation can one ever give to Donna and her fellow sufferers for the fact that they are no longer able to enjoy family life? They will not be able to enjoy the right to have a family of their own. They will not even be able to enjoy the right to life.
I talked earlier of memorials. The best memorial we could have to Donna and her fellow sufferers will be if we fight as hard as we can to eradicate both BSE and CJD and the errors that led to their becoming so widespread.

Mr. William Thompson: It is a privilege to come here this evening to say something about the Phillips report, which I welcome. It is fair and reaches the right balance.
We have heard this afternoon that 86 people have died from this terrible disease. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) has graphically described the symptoms and the duration of the disease. It is tragic that young people with their lives ahead of them have been struck down by this terrible disease, which has no known cure. We all sympathise with the parents and relatives of those who have died and those who are still suffering. The fact that there are eight people who are presumably still suffering from the disease may provide some hope that the disease will not grow to the extent that some of us might fear.
When I first came to the House, I was always surprised by the attitude of the governing Labour party at Agriculture questions. There was always criticism of the Opposition; they were entirely responsible for £4 billion spent on BSE and for the tragedy. We must recognise that, in reality, we cannot blame any particular person. This disease could not have been foreseen. The scientists were working at the frontiers of science and it was impossible to predict the true nature of the disease until more symptoms appeared and more scientific knowledge became available.
The inquiry was right to say that we should not look for scapegoats, because they are none. Indeed, Lord Phillips is right when he also says that if those criticised were misguided, they none the less acted in accordance with their conception of the proper performance of their duties.
We have heard some criticism of the civil service and past Ministers. The Minister was right to be measured in his criticism. He, too, faces difficult decisions. It is easy to criticise when one has never been a Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or held office. However, there are tremendous pressures on those who have to face the media and the likelihood of giving wrong or inadequate advice. The Minister should be commended on his restraint. I agree with the Phillips report that no one should be disciplined.
Happily for Northern Ireland, we did not suffer BSE to the same extent as the rest of the United Kingdom. That may be because of geography and the fact that we are separated by water. So far, there have been few cases of vCJD in Northern Ireland. I am glad to report that the incidence is decreasing in Northern Ireland, as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom.
A specific test was conducted in Northern Ireland on 2,546 animals last year. The Enfer test can indicate the possible presence of BSE in an animal. It produced 60 possible cases. After further microscopic examination, 54 cases were confirmed. At first sight, that figure may appear alarming. We used to have five or six cases, but the test revealed 54. However, 700 four-year-old animals were free of the disease. That is encouraging and shows that our approach is correct and that we are taking the right measures. In several years, we hope that older animals will be clear of the disease and that it will be eradicated.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Will my hon. Friend confirm that none of the cases that were examined could have entered the food chain?

Mr. Thompson: Yes. No animal that is over 30 months enters the food chain. That confirms that the food that we eat in Northern Ireland and, indeed, the United Kingdom is almost certainly free of the disease. That is welcome.
Let us consider the new European regulations. Europe is discovering that BSE exists there, too. The European Union is introducing new restrictions, including one on fishmeal. That will create difficulties in the United Kingdom. Fishmeal was never considered to have played a part in the BSE crisis. I understand that the view in Europe is that fishmeal may have become adulterated with meat and bonemeal. I ask the Minister for Public Health to update us on precisely what is happening in that regard. What are the consequences of excluding fishmeal from ruminant meal? If the Government have made a decision on the matter, when will regulations come into force?
As I know that time is of the essence in this debate, I shall conclude. I am grateful, however, for having had the opportunity to speak in it.

Ms Rosie Winterton: Matthew Parker, from the village of Armthorpe in my constituency, was 19 when, in 1997, he died of variant CJD. Sarah Roberts, also from Armthorpe, was 28 when,


in September 2000, she died of the same disease. Matthew's and Sarah's families are devastated by those deaths. The village of Armthorpe, a close-knit community, has been shocked and enormously saddened by the loss of those two young people.
I have kept in close touch with both Matthew's and Sarah's families. I pay tribute to them not only for their bravery in the dreadful circumstances that they have faced, but for their determination to do everything that they possibly can to ensure that other families do not suffer as they have.
Matthew's family—I am thinking particularly of his mother, Doreen, his grandfather and his father—campaigned vigorously for a public inquiry. I add my voice to those of right. hon. and hon. Members who have congratulated the Government on establishing the Phillips inquiry.
I have listened very carefully to Members' comments about the difficulty of laying blame at the door of any individual. It would be wrong of me, however, not to express the very real anger that I and the families in my constituency feel about the many mistakes that, as the Phillips report highlights, were made by the previous Administration.
Today, we have had apologies from two Conservative Members. Until today, however, as far as I am aware, only one Conservative Member—the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dowell)—had made an apology. The families in my constituency feel particularly angry about that. They feel that the response has been totally inadequate.

Mr. Yeo: May I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the fact that, when the Minister published the Phillips report, on the record, on behalf of the Conservative party, I expressed unreserved apologies? She is completely inaccurate in the claim that she has just made.

Ms Winterton: I have acknowledged that the hon. Gentleman made an apology today. I have also said that my constituents need personal apologies. I hope that he will accept that. I also hope that, in view of his comments, he will support the Government when they have to make difficult decisions on, for example, beef on the bone.

Mr. Yeo: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Winterton: I am sorry, but I cannot give way again because of time constraints.
My constituents want honesty about the past and openness in the future. Openness is crucial to maintaining trust. That was brought home to me recently when it was thought that there might be a cluster of CJD cases in my constituency. Not only had the two young people to whom I have referred died in Armthorpe, but it emerged that a third young man who had had connections with the village had died. An investigation was started into whether there was a connection between the three people who had contracted vCJD.
After the initial investigation, I asked Dr. John Radford, the director of public health, to meet me and the families to discuss the investigation. I know that Dr. Radford had some reservations about sharing the information with

people from outside his profession, but we had the meeting and he was open with us about what had taken place during his investigation. He later wrote to me and said that the meeting
made me realise that we had not paid sufficient attention to the relatives and their feelings.
I want to put on record how helpful we all found Dr. Radford's open approach. I am extremely glad that the Government have made a commitment to ensuring openness and trust in the future.
One of the issues that we discussed at the meeting was the need to share information, especially about potential clusters. I understand that a template has been developed with the Colindale national communicable disease surveillance centre, with input from Doncaster and Leicestershire health authorities. That means that, if there are fears of clusters, the local authority can use the template to ensure that all avenues of investigation are covered. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can confirm that that is the case.
I welcome the Government's positive response to the finding of the Phillips inquiry that improvements are needed to speed up the diagnosis of vCJD. I hope that the Government will consider ways, perhaps through the office of the chief medical officer, to ensure that GPs and psychiatrists are made aware of the early symptoms to look out for and the presentation of vCJD.
I welcome the steps that the Government have taken to provide a care pack age for those who contract vCJD. I know that David Body, who was referred to earlier, has worked hard on that. I know that Matthew and Sarah's families felt that the support that they received from Doncaster social services was good, but they were also aware that the support varied enormously across the country.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that provision is the same across the country, of a high standard, and that the Government consider providing bereavement counselling for relatives—something that the director of public health in Doncaster feels should be available.
No amount of money can ever make up for the tragic loss that the families of those who have died from this terrible disease have suffered, but I believe that the Government moved quickly in their discussions with representatives of the families on compensation, and have responded positively to my concern about those who are in receipt of social security benefits. I know that an announcement was made yesterday about that. I welcome it, but I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to bring the regulations before Parliament quickly so that interim payments can be made.
I ask for an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government will maintain the highest standards of meat inspection In abattoirs. That concern has been raised by the Human BSE Foundation, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give me some reassurance on that matter.
I am aware that, because of time constraints, I have not addressed many of the issues in the Phillips report. The matters that I raised are those that families in my constituency asked me to bring to the attention of Ministers. I am proud that it was the Labour Government who set up the Phillips inquiry, and I am proud that the


Government are responding quickly to the findings of the inquiry. Finally, my plea is that the Government continue to do everything that they can to make sure that such a terrible tragedy never happens again

Mr. David Curry: We all owe a debt of gratitude to Lord Phillips for producing an extremely sane and balanced report. Naturally, at the beginning there were fears that he had been appointed to chair a hanging jury. However, he was completely faithful to the promise that he would not bring retrospective judgments to bear but would judge actions in the light of the science and information that was available at the time. In doing so, he has done a service to everybody. He has enabled us to illuminate the dilemmas that Ministers have to face.
I also pay tribute to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. His response has been equally measured and sensible. As he is in office, he knows that the dilemmas highlighted by the Phillips report are the daily provender of Ministers in sensitive Departments. Dilemmas such as those have appeared in the past and will continue to do so for Ministers in the present.
In the light of the Government's response to the Phillips report, I want to look forward and issue some slightly cautionary notes, in case anyone believes that the document is a new testament that will infallibly light our way. Two especially important issues are covered by chapters 4 and 6—the handling of scientific advice and coping with risk. Of course, the comments in those chapters are sensible, but they do not remove the need for Ministers to make judgments, which, at the end of the day, will be political—because they are made by Ministers. In many circumstances, the last step may always be taken if not in the dark, at least in the murk.
In applying the science, we faced—in the case of BSE—a new disease for which there was no history and little expertise. Scientific expertise was limited so there was no peer group which could review the conclusions reached by the most eminent scientists who had been brought in to advise the Government. The advice offered was, perforce, quasi-monopolistic. Of course, there were, and are, iconoclasts, or mavericks—according to one's side of the argument. How are they to be coped with? Should they be absorbed into the committee and their views brought within the framework of the advice? The danger then would be that the advice itself becomes an uneasy stand-off between opposing viewpoints. Should the Minister place trust in the established scientists—the best-known collection of advice—knowing that the maverick will always command the attention of the media and that, occasionally, the maverick may be right? All Ministers face that dilemma.

Mr. Ainger: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Curry: No, I am sorry but I cannot give way because of the time constraints.
Chapter 4 of the report notes that Departments must have the expertise to commission, understand, evaluate and then draw conclusions from scientific advice. With respect, that is self-evident, but extremely difficult. Science is more complex than it has ever been. The micro-branches of science are not understood by other

micro-branches of science. The generalist, who, because tasks range across a broad spectrum, is almost inevitably the person employed, may not be competent in particular spheres of expertise. One falls back on the hope that there is a peer group of other scientists so that there is a dialectic and argument can take place. However, that means that there are choices, and thus, at the end of the day, that Ministers have to make a judgment. Nothing done by the scientist removes the need for Ministers' ultimate judgments.
Chapter 6 refers to risk. The problem is that, increasingly, we face demands from the public for an absolute guarantee. As our scientific ability to test materials improves and we can detect parts per billion, products that seemed to be pure in the past may suddenly be found to contain an infinitely small element of a contaminant. Of course, the word "contamination" immediately springs to mind, and that absolute guarantee is undeliverable.
Chapter 6.6 of the Government's response states:
Government also needs to deal with issues where people perceive possible risks to health, but where the scientific evidence of harm is inconclusive. A balance needs to be struck between intervening too much, forgoing benefits and stifling people's freedom of action, and failing to help protect them sufficiently from actual or potential hazards.
That is the nub of the issue. Once again, we are back to evaluations and judgment, and all the Minister, or the Government, can do is to place in front of the public the various factors that led him to draw his conclusions and, frankly, hope that people believe that, on balance, it is the right thing to do, knowing that someone will always say that a slightly more extreme or radical solution should have been taken. That leads us straight to the precautionary approach.
Paragraph 6.14 on the precautionary approach states:
Where there is scientific uncertainty, the precautionary principle may be applied. This holds that absence of scientific proof should not delay or prevent proportionate measures to remove or reduce threats of serious harm. The Government is committed to taking a precautionary approach where appropriate.
However, let us consider the language used there. The use of words "proportionate" and "serious harm" involves judgment. The wonderful word "appropriate" is the most important adjective in any Government's lexicon, but determining what is appropriate also involves judgment. So that paragraph lets no one off the hook; it is simply stating, in relatively elegant terms, the eternal dilemma involved in making judgments. There is no mathematical scale that can trigger action.
At the end of day, there must a certain intuitive response, and successful Ministers are often those who have a strongly intuitive sense of what is right and of which direction people demand they should take. The difficulty with the precautionary approach, which seems obviously sensible, is where to draw the line in the sand. Where should the perimeter be set around which the Minister mans those defences that are defensible? If a certain measure of precaution is taken, why not take a little further precaution? Before we know where we are, we should have moved a long way from what can be defended on strictly scientific grounds.
There has been much condemnation of the so-called culture of reassurance, but before we condemn one culture, we need to look at the alternatives. Is hesitation the alternative? Is it a culture of panic, or one in which


we say that we simply do not know? There is much enthusiasm for openness, and of course we say amen to that, but we must be cautious because, as my right hon. Friends have said, a populist and campaigning press may not translate an issue's complexities through to the public.
I wish to cite three contemporary cases that illustrate the dilemmas that Ministers face. I am glad that the Minister for Public Health is here, because I wish to refer to the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. All the players are on scene. We have a vast majority of established scientific opinion in favour of the multiple vaccine. We have a handful of iconoclasts who say that it is causing serious disease in infants. We have Ministers bringing to bear the canon of established Government scientific advice and we have the press seizing on the minority view, with stories that are unashamedly emotional. If Ministers believe their scientific advice, and they have no reason not to, they are condemned to be reassuring in the words that they utter to the public; they have no alternative.
Let us consider another issue—GM foods, which several of my colleagues have mentioned. Openness does prevail; the trial sites are advertised and the map grid references are given, but that leads to direct action and a massively irresponsible and emotional campaign in some newspapers about Frankenstein foods, which makes it even more difficult for the Government to take sensible action. The result has been incoherence, division and confusion at the heart of Government. The Minister need not agree with that, but I simply state that that is the case.
The third case is TB in cattle, which will kill 10 or 20 times more cattle than BSE will in the coming year. In a purely agricultural sense, TB is a far greater problem than BSE. The trials that are taking place are heavily contested and may not produce a conclusive result. In fact, there is a 50:50 chance that they will not produce a result that will enable the Minister to say that science has incontrovertibly demonstrated a clear way forward. Farmers are saying, "We do not want to wait for the scientific tests to be completed, because the problem is so serious that we must make a pre-emptive strike against badgers." The badger group is saying, "You cannot prove that the badgers are responsible, and the whole trial is badly founded." That contemporary case demonstrates that Ministers' intuition has to play a role. The practical steps that must be taken are those that were taken by all my right hon. Friends when they were in Government, facing a similar dilemma and a similar outcome.
I applaud the Food Standards Agency, and Sir John Krebs has done a very good job in establishing its credibility. He has shown canny political sense, and I do not mean that in a party sense. Sir John has made remarks about organic food and about the possibility of BSE-type diseases in sheep. Immediately, red lights began to flash, signalling that his remarks would be contested.
Within Government and its agencies, the lesson to be learned from the BSE episode is the importance of co-ordinating scientific effort, so that scientists know what other scientists are doing. I am referring not to the centralisation of science, but to the need for awareness of what research is being undertaken. There must be a communication channel between scientists and officials, and it is important that scientists' claims be evaluated by officials, Officials should approach Ministers when the

matter becomes one that, politically, they need to know about. Finally, there is a need to enforce the actions that have been decreed. That takes us straight to the old issues of resources, money and staff, which are the subject of everyday arguments between Departments.
We must be careful that we do not expect scientists to substitute for politicians. Scientists make politicians' dilemmas more difficult, not easier. They provide explanations and options; they do not provide answers to the sort of questions that the public ask and politicians need to answer. At the end of the day, the decisions will be political and they will be based on the balance of advice, which will rarely point to a definitive outcome. On every ministerial desk should be printed the legend, "There but for the grace of God … ", and I cannot help but feel that the Minister's sane, balanced response to this issue demonstrates that perhaps, in his mind, he has that legend on his own desk.

Judy Mallaber: The last few Labour Members who have spoken have given extremely moving accounts of what has happened to their constituents. My position is similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) because one of my first surgery cases was brought to me by Shirley Warne, who has been in the Gallery today. She came to my surgery on the way to visit her son, Chris, who was in hospital dying of CJD. I subsequently visited and spoke to Shirley and her husband, Terry, many times. Terry is currently in the same neurological ward at Derby royal infirmary, where Chris died, and I send him my best wishes.
Shirley and Terry wanted me to argue for a public inquiry. As a very new MP, I was hesitant about doing so because I did not want to raise their hopes when I did not know whether we would get such an inquiry. I think it unlikely that we would have had an inquiry if we had not had a Labour Government. When I went to see the then Minister of Agriculture, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), he told me that his son had been at university with someone who had died of CJD, so he was well aware of the tragedy of the disease and felt strongly about it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was determined that we had to get to the bottom of the matter because we did not know how big a tragedy it would turn out to be and the victims' families wanted answers.
The families are angry, as I am, because there have not been sufficient individual apologies for what has happened. I do not say that in terms of ascribing individual blame, but mistakes were made, as outlined in the Phillips report. Irrespective of whether they were made by individuals, or as a result of the system that determines how the Government and Departments work, it is necessary for whoever runs an organisation to take responsibility and say sorry. People want a handsome apology.
I congratulate the Government on their response. Shirley told me last night that she had been talking to two other families who had spoken about the excellent care and assistance that they were receiving at home from nurses and the case worker who discussed their needs with them. She did not think that one hospital gave them that level of support when Chris was dying, although she greatly praised the staff at Derby royal infirmary for the care that they provided.
Mistakes were made and responsibility must be taken for them. We may not be able to prevent health and food scares from occurring, but we can take on board the well-written findings, which are summarised in the interim response. They state:
To establish credibility it is necessary to generate trust … Trust can only be generated by openness … Openness requires recognition of uncertainty, where it exists.'
We understand that the findings and recommendations embark us on a difficult agenda, but the previous Government failed to accept that there was uncertainty. They were determined to deny that it existed.
The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) said that he had been criticised for not being sufficiently open about the health scares, and outlined his response to that. When I considered that criticism and examined the evidence in the various volumes of the report, I was struck by the fact that Ron Davies, the then Opposition spokesman on agriculture, raised a huge number of issues on the SBO ban. He was extremely tenacious. As my right hon. Friends who were shadow spokesmen at the time have made clear, the then Opposition pursued many issues with considerable persistence. I understand that it is difficult for Ministers to take such difficult issues on board, but the lessons should be learned. The least that we can do for the families who have suffered such tragedies is to acknowledge that openly and fully.
Although we cannot necessarily prevent food and health scares from occurring, we can say that the lessons will be learned. Never again will we have a culture of secrecy; never again will regulation be thought of as merely bureaucratic, especially when it is in place to protect people. We need to examine the systems so that there is openness; to take the precautionary principle to heart; to trust people; and to acknowledge that it is difficult to talk about risks and hard for the public to assess them. Instead of hiding facts, we must be open.
I was in the Gallery before the debate began and spoke to the parents—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. It is not acceptable to refer to the Gallery.

Judy Mallaber: I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The solicitor, David Body, told me that his clients are pleased with the compensation package and the response, but want the lessons to be learned and put into effect. A Conservative Member said that this is the start of the process. We must commit ourselves to ensuring that the lessons are fully followed up. We need to do that for all those people who have suffered and to ensure that others do not suffer in the future.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: I endorse the views just expressed by the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber). This is the start of the process and we accept many of the points that she made.
I also share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) and pay tribute to the Minister for his measured and responsible approach to the debate. He is to be commended on setting the tone for the debate. It follows from his recent comments on the "On the Record" programme, when he said that it would be a

mistake to turn this issue into a fight along party political lines. That view was reiterated by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), who said that it is primarily an issue about how government works, whichever political party happens to be in power. The Minister deserves credit for ensuring a balanced and purposeful debate.
The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) asked whether an incoming Conservative Government would implement, as the current Government intend to do, the recommendations of the Phillips report in full. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) gave that assurance at the start of the debate, and I take this opportunity to repeat the commitment.
The House has, quite rightly, dealt with the human dimension in this debate. Let us remember that much of the Phillips report dealt with the problem of vCJD as much as with that of BSE. I wish to take this opportunity to reiterate the sympathy that Conservative Members have for the families of those who lost loved ones to the disease and to those who are struggling with the problems of a family member who has contracted it. We welcome the Government's response to the needs of those families—what they have done already and what they propose to do. We shall listen carefully to what the Minister for Public Health says about further moves in that regard.
One can understand the anger and the frustration of the families involved and their need to find someone to be accountable. Their views were sympathetically put in the debate by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) and by the hon. Members for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) and for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge). However, chapter 1 of the executive summary of the Phillips report concludes:
The Government did not lie to the public about BSE. It believed that the risks posed by BSE to humans were remote.
Later it adds that, in the years covered by the report,
most of those responsible for responding to the challenge posed by BSE emerge with credit.
However, the report alludes to a number of shortcomings in the way that things were done. They were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk in his opening remarks and I reiterate our acceptance of the shortcomings and our regret that they happened.
Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends who were involved directly in these matters have put their case in the debate and it will have been clear to the House that they did so without equivocation. Nowhere in Phillips is their integrity impugned. To give the Minister credit, when he was interviewed on "On the Record" in February this year, he said:
Anyone who has come to our Report looking to allocate blame will go away disappointed.

Tony Wright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Moss: No, I have not got much time and I want to give the Minister time to respond.
The Phillips report is a thorough investigation and appraisal of the BSE issues, and offers a fair and balanced view of events. It makes three main recommendations to the Government: first, the effectiveness of communication within government and between Departments needs to be


considered and improved dramatically; secondly, the response time to implement decisions taken at ministerial level needs to be addressed; and, thirdly, we must consider the degree of openness with the public on health-risk issues.
On communications between Departments, we welcome the formation of the National Zoonoses Group, chaired by the chief medical officer, to address the risk to human health posed by zoonoses and to consider new and emerging diseases. To access the best scientific advice, we welcome "Guidelines 2000" from the Office of Science and Technology. It is mentioned in the Phillips report that the Meat and Livestock Commission, up to March 1996, appears not to have been covering all its statutory objectives, and that it will be putting proposals to the Government soon to achieve a better balance between its responsibilities to both stakeholders and consumers. That is a sensible move, and we trust that the Government will respond positively.
The issue of openness has been raised by many right hon. and hon. Members. The Government's main response is to point to the establishment of the Food Standards Agency. Although it is now generally welcomed, it is somewhat disingenuous to claim that had the FSA been in force earlier, a less damaging evolution of BSE and related variant CJD would have been the result. As the report concludes in chapter 1 of the executive summary,
it was not MAFF's policy to lean in favour of the agricultural producers to the detriment of the consumer.
As many of my right hon. Friends who were involved directly in government at the time have confirmed, decisions in relation to human health implications were taken in good faith.
Many issues relating to scientific advice come within the scope of greater openness. The Government are right to respond in the positive way that they have to recommendations about how, in future, scientific information will be made available to the general public. Although we were not able to have a blanket reassurance on the matter during the debate, we welcome the Minister's assurance that he will publish the scientific advice that is put to him within the Ministry.
A critical area of science is that of testing and the need to leave no research avenue uninvestigated. That point was raised by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). In their response to the Phillips report, the Government agree with the finding that tissues in an animal incubating a TSE may be infectious before the animal has developed clinical signs of the disease. That has serious implications for food safety in meat under 30 months, despite the application of the precautionary principle.
Furthermore, the Government accept in their response that the most effective way of reducing the risk would be to have a diagnostic test sensitive enough to detect infected animals in the pre-clinical stages, which could therefore be used in widespread screening programmes.
We welcome the Government's initiative in asking Professor Horn to lead a team of scientists to review our understanding of the origin of BSE. We hope and expect that in this they will review the issue of testing. Perhaps

that is the most important issue to come out of the Phillips report. The hon. Member for Eastwood spoke about the families' desperate need to get to the bottom of the BSE-CJD problem. We share that view.
The question has been raised of the efficacy and accuracy of the testing for BSE in cattle older than 30 months. It is now part of the European Commission's raft of measures to counter the problem. However, we have not yet had a clear and unequivocal statement from the Government on their view of the test. A spokesman for the commissioner, David Byrne, said that a negative test result on its own did not mean that beef from cattle older than 30 months was safe to eat. He said:
We've never sold it".—
that is the test—
as a safety measure. We sell it as a measure to enhance consumer confidence. A negative result does not mean beef is negative.
Although that admission could be welcomed as a sign of greater openness, it nevertheless invites questions of the Government and the FSA.
The history of BSE since the mid-1980s is as tragic an event as we have ever experienced in this country. Great distress and anger have been caused not only to the families of variant CJD victims but to the livestock farming community. We should not lose sight of the fact that livelihoods have been ruined and businesses destroyed in the agriculture sector as well. The Opposition accept that mistakes were made, but we join the Government in responding positively to all the recommendations set out in Lord Phillips' report. The families affected need to know how BSE originated and how it happened. We share those views and pledge out support for the Government in their endeavour to find the answers.

The Minister for Public Health (Yvette Cooper): We have had a measured, thoughtful and constructive debate this afternoon about the BSE inquiry and the tragedy of new variant CJD that lies behind it. Many Members began their speeches by expressing sympathy for the families whose lives have been turned upside down and often devastated by nvCJD. I join them, for we need always to bear in mind that reality when we consider the events that lie behind the BSE inquiry.
My right hon. Friend the Minister gave a clear summary of the extremely thorough and extensive Phillips report, and the shortcomings and problems that it identified. He also explained the key themes in the Government's interim response. I shall not go over that ground and I apologise now to any Members whose points I am not able to respond to in the time that remains.
The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) discussed issues of openness; he and the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) both welcomed the report. I welcome their commitment to pursuing the issues behind the report and its conclusions. My right hon. Friends the Members for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) described their concerns and the questions that they asked in the 1990s. They described their frustration in raising those issues in discussion and debate at that time.
The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) welcomed the report and raised important issues, based on his experience. I am certainly


interested in considering further the questions that he asked about whether or not the fear of judicial review might prevent an effective precautionary approach from being adopted. That is clearly an area in which the publication of scientific evidence can play an important role, and we need to consider it further.
The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) expressed support for the Food Standards Agency, which I welcome. However, I disagree that the Government consider the Phillips report as a done and dusted deal and believe that no more needs to be done. The reverse is true, as our debate has shown. A huge amount needs to be done to ensure that the response to the report is properly embedded across Government. Already, a huge amount has been done, but there is certainly more to do.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), and my hon. Friends the Members for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge), for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) and for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) described powerfully the experiences both of constituents who are suffering today from nvCJD and of the families of those who have died from the condition. Many of those accounts were moving. I pay tribute to the work that my right hon. and hon. Friends have done in raising their constituents' concerns. Certainly, many of them have expressed those concerns directly to Ministers, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston came to see Ministers with a delegation to outline concerns especially about the need for care packages and the importance of improving care for those suffering from nvCJD.
I would like to highlight a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central; many of those victims' families have campaigned for a public inquiry for a long time. Those of us who will benefit from the conclusions of the Phillips report and their implementation in future owe those families a debt for their tenacity in pursuing that issue at an extremely difficult time for them.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) spoke about how much was known about the transmission of the disease at an early stage. The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard)—whose speech I apologise for missing—made interesting points about the importance of the media in communicating risk. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) referred to the need to find the origins of BSE and nvCJD, and the role that OPs may have played. My right hon. Friend the Minister is happy to look into the report that he mentioned, and will write to him on that issue.
The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) welcomed the measures that are making a difference to controlling BSE in Northern Ireland. He raised the ban on feeding fishmeal to ruminants. I can tell him that the EU ban will be reviewed before 1 July. The Government will consider the UK position in the light of further scientific advice, the results of the Commission's missions to member states and other developments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley spoke about the failure to deal with uncertainty. I should like to return to discussion on that subject in future. I shall return also to the specific points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central about care and compensation. On her concerns about meat inspection, however, I can tell her that no formal proposals have been

made to change the rules, although I understand that the European Commission has circulated a working document containing initial ideas on a risk-based meat inspection system. The Government's concern at every stage will be to ensure that proper standards are in place to protect public health.
In the remaining time, I want to concentrate on three health issues that have arisen several times in the debate. First, I should like to deal with the care and support that we provide for those who are now suffering because of what went wrong in the past in respect of BSE and nvCJD. I know that many of the affected families understandably feel angry and that their troubles have been exacerbated by struggling to get the care and support that they need. The BSE inquiry identified a lack of sufficient support for patients and their families. All the lessons that we learn for the future will have come too late for those people.
Many hon. Members have expressed their concern about that to the Department. That is why the Government announced on the report's publication that £1 million would be made available for a care fund to support patients who were being nursed at home by their families. The fund is already being used to support patients in the community and to pay for elements of care that cannot readily be supplied by local health and social services. We are keen to ensure that those care packages continue to be shaped around the families' views and needs.
I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood that we will certainly review the size of that fund if more cases arise. It is being administered by the CJD surveillance unit in Edinburgh and its aim is to provide uniform care throughout the country, to ensure that families can speedily access the expertise that they need to support them whenever they find themselves in this dreadful situation. We intend forthcoming guidance on home care charges to state that CJD patients should not pay them.
We also announced on the report's publication that we intended to make special compensation payments to those who contracted nvCJD and their families. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced that, although discussions are continuing with the legal representatives of the affected families, we will make interim payments of £25,000 in the meantime. We will also introduce regulations to ensure that the payments are not taken into account in the calculation of income-related social security benefits. We will do that as swiftly as we can.
I want to deal briefly with the important, but not easy, issue of assessing and communicating risk. The Phillips report states:
The other casualty of the BSE story has been the destruction of the credibility of government pronouncements.
That is extremely serious; it is about not only BSE, but trust in Government across the board and in pronouncements on health and safety. As many hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, the key is openness and honesty with the public about risk. That means publicising scientific advice and providing people with the facts so that they can make their own decisions about whether the Government are making a sensible policy judgment. We must also be able to distinguish between circumstances in which there is said to be no scientific evidence of a risk because there is lots of


scientific evidence that does not support it, and circumstances in which there is simply no good evidence at all. There is a distinction between the two that we have not always made in the past in public health, but we must do so now.
For example, the experts tell us that there is a good deal of evidence to show that there is no link between MMR vaccines and autism. On mobile phones, on the other hand, they tell us that there is simply no good evidence at all, which is why we must take a different approach with regard to those matters. We must publish all the scientific evidence at every stage, whether or not it favours our conclusions. That is critical to providing people with increasing confidence in Government pronouncements.
It is of great concern that public confidence in Government pronouncements has been undermined. Hon. Members on both sides of the House must do everything that we can to improve that.

It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

LIAISON COMMITTEE (SUB-COMMITTEE)

Motion made,

That Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended as follows:

Line 31, at end add—
`() The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to report to the committee from time to time.
() The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before the sub-committee.
() The quorum of the sub-committee shall be three.'.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31 January],
That the Select Committee on Science and Technology shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 January],
That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Motion made,
That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments be amended as follows:
Line 40, before the word 'European' insert the words `Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 50, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 52, at the end insert the words:—
'(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. McNulty.]

Hon. Members: Object.

LANGUAGE OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS

Motion made,

That—

(1) this House approves the First Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 2000-01 (HC 47); and
(2) the Resolution of 5th June 1996 on the Language of Parliamentary Proceedings be amended accordingly by inserting, after the word 'Wales,', the words 'and at Westminster in respect of Select Committees'.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Hon. Members: Object.

PETITION

Rail Network

7 pm

Mr. Kerry Pollard: I bring a petition from the citizens of St. Albans, bearing several thousand signatures, asking for the track and signalling of the rail network to be brought back into public ownership. It is most appropriate in view of today's news that several extra billion pounds worth of revenue will be required for the east coast mainline uprating.

The petition states:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of residents of St. Albans

Sheweth
That public confidence in the safety of the rail network has been severely undermined as a result of recent events.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House restores the public's confidence in the rail system by passing legislation to return the rail network to public ownership and accountability.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

UK-US Relations

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Mr. Michael Fabricant: The debate is about the United Kingdom, the United States and Europe. In a recent MORI poll, people were asked:
In a crisis, which of these—Europe, the Commonwealth or the United States—do you think would be Britain's most reliable political ally?
The result was 16 per cent. for Europe, 15 per cent.—surprisingly—for the Commonwealth, and 59 per cent. for the United States.
I believe that there is a special relationship, but that view is not held by everyone. The director of historical studies at Cambridge, Professor David Reynolds, exemplifies the view that the special relationship is artificial. He claims:
Recognising that the special relationship has been in part a deliberate British creation—a tradition invented as a tool of diplomacy—helps us appreciate the artifice that lays behind fulsome official British rhetoric about America.
I disagree. That is unrealistic. The special relationship is solid—rooted, as it is, in trading, defensive and societal interactions on a massive scale. One need only consider the trade flows between our two nations or the 3 million Britons who visit the US each year.
The US and the UK rank first and second, respectively, as Our two countries are also the largest recipients of foreign investment, as well as one another's largest foreign investor. United States investment alone accounts for approximately 40 per cent. of the UK's entire of foreign investment, and in 1998, the total value of Anglo-American trade reached $165 billion—larger in value than the economies of most nation states.
Neither is this massive mutual investment in decline. Between 1991 and 1997, the value of UK exports to the US increased by 50 per cent., as did UK imports from the US. In a world where 51 of the 100 most valuable entities are not nation states but corporations, it is Anglo-American corporations that lead the way, accounting as they do for almost half of worldwide merger and acquisition activity during the last 20 years of the 20th century.
Despite that massive mutual investment, barriers and threats to the special relationship remain, especially in the spheres of trade and defence. I shall begin by examining barriers and threats to trade, before discussing the dangers to the Atlantic alliance.
Although successive general agreement on tariffs and trade and World Trade Organisation accords have reduced trading tariffs to an average of just 2.6 per cent., much Anglo-American commerce remains subject to tariffs as high as 15 per cent. In a report last August, the US International Trade Commission estimated that the elimination of those tariffs would boost bilateral trade by around 10 per cent., and would have the effect of lowering prices in the United Kingdom. I know that the Minister has seen the ITC's report, in which it said:
Despite the healthy trade relationship between America and the UK, trade barriers persist. They are evident in agricultural products; pharmaceuticals; textiles; apparel and footwear; machinery and equipment; and services.

That is bad news, because the report was about the impact on the United States economy of including the United Kingdom in the North American Free Trade Area.
Ever since entering the single market, the UK has entrusted the terms of her foreign trade to the European Union, and thus our scope for unilateral action to reduce tariffs against the US is unfortunately limited. We can and must do more to bolster the feeble efforts of the European Union to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States.
Under French pressure, the attempts of Sir Leon Brittan to conclude an agreement collapsed repeatedly. On everything from bananas, to beef, to offshore tax rules, considerable differences remain. The broader problem is that, rather than focusing on the extension of free trade, the EU Trade Commission has focused on the extension of its own authority. In the use of its regulatory powers over trade, the EU could learn a lot from the United States, and I shall explain how.
The instrument allowing the regulation of trade between the component states of the US is the interstate commerce clause of the constitution. Specifically, the ICC gives the federal Government power to regulate trade between, but not within, the 50 states. Like the economic harmonisation provisions of the Maastricht treaty, liberal interpretations of the ICC by Congress, and at times by the Supreme Court, have allowed the regulation of intrastate activities when they have had but tenuous effects on interstate commerce. An instrument designed to facilitate trade between states thereby became a vehicle for torrents of federal regulation. In much the same way, Brussels has used the aim of economic harmonisation to justify its regulation of everything from Europeans' working hours to the shape of their fruit.
Yet in the US, at least, there has been a sea change in the federal Government's use of their power to regulate interstate commerce—a change that Brussels could do well to learn from. That change came in 1995 with the Supreme Court case, United States v. Lopez. Chief Justice Rhenquist's ruling in Lopez turned on his reasoning that if all that is required to justify the regulation of an intrastate activity is that it is shown to possess some small nexus with interstate commerce, there would exist in America the potential for not merely federal, but completely centralised government. Rhenquist' s jurisprudence contains a powerful lesson for the EU: power over interstate commerce should be used to facilitate trade, not as a Trojan horse for extraneous federal regulation.
The EU lacks the check on centralisation provided in the US by the Supreme Court, whose recent rulings on the limits of interstate trade regulation should be a lesson to Brussels. The court's ruling in Maryland v. Wirtz, for example, attempted to delineate how the federal Government could use their power over interstate commerce to impose wider regulation. The decision on Maryland stated:
The Supreme Court has never declared that the Federal Government may use a relatively trivial impact upon commerce as an excuse for broader regulation of state or private activities.
Were something of the court's wisdom applied to the European Union, we could be spared meddlesome interventions concerning the milk content of chocolate, hairdressers' tea breaks—with which I am very familiar—and other such trivia.
Unfortunately, Brussels is an unlikely student of Chief Justice Rhenquist, not least because its governing ambition has been to achieve, and not—unlike John Locke


and the American constitution—avoid, the total hegemony of government. In a perverse ordering of priorities, Brussels has failed to stop its constant distortion of interstate trade with public subsidies and price fixing. Let us consider the heavily subsidised farming in continental Europe, and the state airlines.
In any event, countries such as France do not seem to share the respect for law shown by Britain and the United States. We enforce European Union directives and law, while other countries seem to ignore them. This debate follows an earlier debate on BSE. The disrespect for law is exemplified by France's continued refusal—against EU law—to import British beef, though it be free of BSE.
I want to say something about defence, and in doing so to endorse the popular and correct opinion that the Atlantic alliance is in danger. A convenient myth has evolved in Europe that the Russian threat has—for want of a better word—evaporated. In fact, Russia's perestroika may prove vestigial, with the future election of an autocrat. Even some of Vladimir Putin's recent actions on control of the media should give some cause for alarm. Russia's present governing arrangement is more plutocratic than democratic, and remains highly volatile.
The notion that Europe can relax in the company of such a neighbour, and that the EU can pursue policies undermining NATO and establish a defence union characterised by underfunding, undermanning and tension between its competent nations, is misguided. We have already seen Russia loosen her criteria for the use of nuclear missiles, while Vladimir Putin made increasing military expenditure by 50 per cent. central to his presidential campaign.
A record 30 per cent. of Russia's defence spending was devoted to military procurement in 1999. Putin also backs the development of a new generation of multiple re-entry missiles, capable of penetrating the most sophisticated missile defence systems yet envisaged. Conversely, European nations have been making drastic cuts in their defence expenditure. In devoting, on average, less than 2.2 per cent. of gross domestic product to defence, they have in effect been freeriding on United States defence expenditure, fuelling calls by Condaleezza Rice—among many Americans—for US forces to withdraw from Europe completely. Following a decision rightly criticised by the US's outgoing Defence Secretary, William Cohen, Germany reduced her military expenditure in December 1999 to a pitiful 1.9 per cent. of GDP. The UK now spends just 2.5 per cent. of her GDP on defence.
Especially worrying is the establishment of the 65,000-strong European army at the 1999 Helsinki summit. It has neither adequate funding nor the necessary co-ordination to realise its aims. In fact, that may be just as well. President Chirac has said:
The object of the European defence identity is to contain the United States".
How ridiculous!
Meanwhile, the Franco-German summit, which also took place in December 1999, contained declarations not only on a shared military intelligence satellite, Syracuse 3, and a rapid reaction force, but on a heavy-lift capacity. Dr. Jonathan Eyal of the Royal United Services Institute has estimated—excepting the unlikely prospect of the United States lending Europe a fleet of Galaxy

aircraft—that acquiring heavy-lift capacity would cost the already overburdened European taxpayer $100 billion a year for the next 10 years.
The Western European Union, moreover, has now been folded into the EU. From France's perspective, subsuming the WEU is designed exactly to allow Europe one day to jettison NATO altogether. Why else, indeed, would the ambitious Javier Solana opt to leave NATO in order to head the—formerly unimportant—WEU? France's desire to undermine NATO resurfaced in January 2000, when Paris sided with China and Russia to argue that the Pentagon's proposed national missile defence system contravened the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty.
The question in Washington is, of course, why should we lend Europe the equipment that its defence ambitions require? While in joint command through NATO the US has shown herself prepared, when asked, to contribute to the solving of essentially European conflicts. The US air force dispatched some 90 per cent. of the bombs dropped on Kosovo. However, denied a commanding role, the US would be foolhardy to sign over its NATO equipment, especially when only a few days ago the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, said:
The EU should aspire to be a world power—not just a trading bloc, but a political entity.
We now hear that the European army—for that is what it is—is looking to use discarded Ukrainian military equipment as a means of operating without US support. If it were not so serious, it would be laughable. The British Government may be too blind to see it, but it is just such anti-Americanism that continues to motivate French support for European defence. The decision to allow American members of NATO's operations centre, SHAPE, to sit on the new EU military committees, for example, was greeted in France with unbridled fury.
The conclusion to be drawn from all that I have said today is that there exists a yawning gap between our formal, treaty ties to the Europe Union on the one hand, and our cultural and trading ties with the United States on the other. The Government must be resolute and take action to narrow and close this gap. As a first move, they must press for the abolition of tariffs on Anglo-American trade—whether in co-operation with the EU or, if necessary, unilaterally. The Government must also resist the drive toward a fully fledged European army.
Smaller but no less significant measures could also be taken to bolster Anglo-American relations, such as allowing citizens of the US the same speedy passage through UK immigration as is enjoyed by EU citizens. Certainly, it is an indignity to thousands of former American and Commonwealth servicemen—who fought for Britain, whence many of them hailed—that they must queue as "aliens" to enter our country.
There can be no doubt that a special relationship exists between the US and the UK, but that relationship must find formal expression if it is to survive and prosper. As the loose relationship of Spain and Portugal with South America reminds us, cultural ties alone are not enough to foster close co-operation. The use of trade policy to bolster Anglo-American relations is now almost entirely denied to us, thanks to our membership of the European Union. The expression of the special relationship in defence co-operation must not be allowed to go the same way.
Britain is reaching a critical point in its history. It is being driven along, l fear, by the EU's desire to "contain the United States"—another phrase used by President


Chirac. How quickly France forgets its debt of honour to the American war dead who fell on the beaches of Normandy 57 years ago.
The Kaiser used to say, "Those who are not with us are against us." I hope that Britain will not be forced into a choice between the United States and the European Union. However, if such a choice were ever forced upon us, I have no hesitation in saying that our destiny should lie with English-speaking nations such as the United States. They share with us a common legal system, a respect for the rule of law, a common history, and a common sense of democracy and decency.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): It is always a pleasure to respond to the speeches of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). I well remember my visit to Lichfield at his invitation in my previous incarnation when he was mobbed by his constituents in the high street, all asking for the name of his hairdresser.
It is a great pleasure also to see in the House my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster)—in my view, the best Member of Parliament that Hastings and Rye has ever produced. I look forward to visiting his constituency in March of this year.
This is an important and timely debate, as it is being held near to the visit of the Prime Minister to President Bush. We wish the new Administration well in their endeavours. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend has just returned from a highly successful visit to the United States where he met the new and dynamic Secretary of State, Colin Powell.
Britain and the United States have a uniquely close relationship, based on common values, common interests and a common language. I want to mention a couple of those aspects. Our political systems are founded on a shared liberal outlook and values: freedom, free speech and free trade. Britain's strategic partnership with the US in NATO remains fundamental to the national security of both our countries. The US, as the hon. Gentleman said, is our biggest single export market. We are the biggest investors in each other's country.
There are close personal ties between our peoples at every level. More happens in the US that is relevant to Britain than in any other country. In the limited amount of time left to me by the hon. Gentleman, I hope to explore the fact that our position as a leading player in the European Union enhances this relationship.
The transatlantic relationship will remain strong because our vital national interests coincide now as much as they ever did. The Government are committed to working with the new Administration as we have done with previous ones in pursuit of our common interests. President Bush has confirmed to the Prime Minister that he shares this determination. The warmth shown to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary by the Secretary of State bodes very well for the future. The visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Washington from 22 to 24 February will re-cement this important relationship.
Last year, Britain sold £28 billion, $40 billion, worth of goods to the American market, and bought about the same amount of American goods. We sell more to Boeing

than we do to many countries. British interests in many of the 50 states individually outweigh our interests in most other countries. Year after year, Britain and the US are the biggest investors in each other's country. We are now the most important overseas investor in California, having just overtaken Japan. Some 5,600 American companies see Britain as their base in the European single market.
It is important to explore some aspects of what the hon. Gentleman said. First, he made a number of proposals which I shall dub "the Fabricant proposals", if I may. I will study them. If we can do anything that will enhance the relationship between the US and Britain, we are certainly willing to do it. If he would like to come to see me to discuss the proposals, I will be more than happy to do that. No doubt that will feature prominently on his website. I know that other meetings I have had with the hon. Gentleman have reverberated around the world.
The US seeks to ensure that Britain is a leading player in the EU. Since 1 May 1997, the Government have been committed to playing that leading role. We have been supported by the American Government and that has not in any way affected the special relationship we have with the US. It is because we are playing a role in Brussels and shaping the agenda in Europe that the US benefits, as do our business people and our own people.
The second point that the hon. Gentleman raised concerned defence and foreign policy. That gives me an excellent opportunity to clear up some of the misunderstanding sown by the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), the shadow Defence Secretary, as he travels like a weasel to Washington on various occasions trying to spread disharmony among those on the Hill.
We are absolutely committed to NATO, which forms the cornerstone of our defence policy and we will do nothing to undermine it. However, we believe that our relationship with our European partners through the new European defence policy will lead to NATO's enhancement. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lichfield makes a funny face, but I assure him that we will act only when NATO does not wish to act. We will act only in co-operation and in consultation with NATO and on those key tasks—the Petersberg tasks—that have been agreed by successive Governments. I remind the hon. Gentleman that they were agreed by Sir Malcolm Rifkind when he was Secretary of State for Defence. The initiative is therefore not new, but has been on-going under several different Administrations.
Our discussions with our European partners and colleagues in the past year—certainly since the St. Malo conference when the matter was first raised between France and Britain—show an absolute desire to ensure a co-ordinated approach. Colin Powell and the American Government understand that, and have supported what we have said. That does not prevent an individual, usually from a former Administration, from appearing on "Newsnight" and being presented by Mr. Jeremy Paxman as a great authority on the subject. Of course, people have raised anxieties, but they do not need to worry. We will not act without our NATO partners. That has been agreed and approved by all the European leaders. My meetings in the European Council suggest that the matter will be developed in the next weeks, months and years.
We do not need to choose between the United States and the European Union. We are in the European Union, as are eight of our top 10 trading partners and 700,000 British businesses. A huge amount of trade takes place with other European Union countries, yet some Conservative Members, when they attend our proceedings, say that Britain should withdraw from the European Union. We believe in a stronger Britain in a wider Europe. That is why we support the admission of applicant countries to the European Union. The hon. Gentleman tries to be tough and macho on the issues that we are considering, but he does not need to be. I know he accepts that Britain is a European country and that our future is in Europe.
We can maintain strong relationships with Europe and the United States. Indeed, the stronger the ties with the United States, the stronger the ties with other European countries. We are determined that developments in Europe should strengthen, not undermine, our strategic partnership with the United States. Britain's pivotal role in the transatlantic alliance is valued by our friends in Europe and in the United States.
Any loss of influence in Europe would damage our economic and strategic relations with the United States. One of the best ways to maintain Britain's influence and interest in the United States is for us to continue the work of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in the past four years and ensure that we are key players. The Prime Minister's role at the Nice summit last month further strengthened our influence in Europe and therefore our relationship with the United States.
As the Foreign Secretary has said, however, it is not a choice between the United States and Europe. There is no tension. The tension is created by those who want to sow mischief. I urge the hon. Gentleman, who I know thinks deeply about these matters, to reconsider some of the views that he has expressed today. Perhaps by the time that we meet to discuss the Fabricant proposals, he will be able to tell me that he strongly supports our relationship with the United States and strongly supports our relationship with our European partners.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Seven o'clock.